



"^'^O 



1^ 
liETTERS ^^^ 



CONCERNING 



THE CONSTITUTION AND ORDER 



ST^e eDtif^tian JWinls^tt©: 



ADDRESSED TO THE 



MEMBERS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 



TO WHICH IS PREFIXED, 



A LETTER 



PRESENT ASPECT AND BEARING OP THE EPISCOPAL 
CONTROVERSY. 



ElOVEl 



BY SAMUEL MILLER, D. D. 

PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT IN 
THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY. 



SECOND EDITION. 




TOWAR, J. & D. M. HOGAN— PITTSBURGH, HOGAN U CO. 

C. SHERMAN & CO. PRINTERS. 



1830. 










Eastern Distrid of Pennsylvaniat to wit; 

Be it remembered. That on the fifth day of October in the fifty -fifth 
year of the Independence of the United States of America, A. D. 1830, 
TowAR, J. 8c D. M. HoGAN, of the said district, have deposited in tliis 
office the title of a book, the right whereof they claim as proprietors, in 
the words following-, to wit; 

Letters conc^ning- the Constitution and Order of the Christian Ministry: 
Addressed to the Members of the Presbyterian Churches in the City of 
New York, To which is prefixed, a Letter on the present Aspect 
and Bearing- of the Episcopal Controversy. By Samuel Miller, D. D. 
Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government in the 
Theological Seminary at Princeton, New Jersey. Second Edition. 

In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, en- 
titled "An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the 
copies of maps, charts, and books to tlie authors and proprietors of 
such copies during the times therein mentioned." And also to the 
act entitled "An act supplementary to an act entitled "An act for the 
encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, 
and books to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the 
times therein mentioned,' and extending the benefits thereof to the 
arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical and other prints." 
• D. CALDWELL, 

Clerk of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



PRELIMINARY LETTER, - '-. - - " V 

PART I. 

Letter I. Introductory, 1 

II. Testimony of Scripture, - - - 14 

III. Testimony of Scripture continued, - 45 

IV. Testimony of the early Fathers, - 80 

V. Testimony of Some of the Later Fathers, 110 
VI. Testimony of the Reformers, - - 135 

VII. Concessions of Eminent Episcopalians, 15*7 

VIII. Rise and Progress of Prelacy, - 183 
IX. Practical Influence of Prelacy, &c, - 214 

PART II. 
Letter I. Introductory, - ^ - . ;^30 
II. Presbyterian and Episcopal Claims com- 
pared, ----- 242 

III. Testimony of Scripture reviewed, - 265 

IV. The office of Ruling Elder considered, 292 
V. Testimony of the Fathers reviewed, 311 

VI. Testimony of the Reformers reviewed, 351 
VII. Testimony of Calvin examined, - 389 

VIII. Testimony of the Successors of the Re- . 

formers, _ _ _ . 428 
IX. Rise and Progress of Prelacy reconsi- 
dered, 453 

X. Episcopal Concessions — Uninterupted 

Succession, . - - - 474 



TO 

THE MEMBERS 

OF THE 

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

I TAKE the liberty to inscribe this volume, in its present 
fornij to you. The original publication was addressed to 
those^united churches in the city of New York, of which 
I was, at the time of its date, one of the pastors. And 
although I still cherish the memory of that relation with 
grateful and affectionate respect, and still continue the 
address which ^was at first adopted; yet, as the circum- 
stances which induce me to present the work a second time 
to the public, are of wider extent than the demands of a few 
single congregations ; I wish to bespeak the attention of 
the whole ecclesiastical body, with which I have the hap- 
piness to be connected, to the subject here discussed :-^ 
a subject which the unscriptural and exorbitant claims of 
a particular denomination among us have invested with an 
interest beyond that which intrinsically belongs to it. It 
is the duty of Christians in every age, not only to make 
themselves well acquainted with important religious truth, 
but also to arm themselves against surrounding errors; 
especially those which, from the plausibility and confidence 
with which they are advanced, are peculiarly fitted to 
*^ deceive the hearts of the simple.'^ 

The following " Letters'^ were originally published in 
two separate volumes; — the first in the year 1807; the 
2 



Vi PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

second in 1809 ; the latter being an examination of the 
strictures of several friends of prelacy on the preceding 
volume. They have both been out of print for a number 
of years; and although frequent inquiry has been made 
for them, it was not supposed, until lately, that the demand 
was sufficient to warrant a second edition. Recent circum- 
stances, however, have led to the belief that a new and 
corrected impression would be seasonable, and not unac- 
ceptable to the friends of primitive truth and order. 

The original publication was made, with much reluctance, 
in consequence of repeated, long-continued, and violent 
attacks from some high-toned advocates of prelacy, chiefly 
of the state of New York, where I then resided. Of its 
reception by my episcopal neighbours, I will here say 
nothing. But I have the satisfaction to know that many 
others, whose good opinion I highly prize, considered the 
work as a service of some value to the cause of truth. It 
answered, in a good measure, the purpose which I intended. 
It satisfied and confirmed numbers, who had been either 
surprised or perplexed by the confidence of episcopal state- 
ments, and for whose instruction I was bound to provide 
Having accomplished this design, I was quite willing that 
the work should pass into oblivion, with the controversy 
which had called it forth. And I can truly say, that one 
reason why I felt so little disposed, several, years ago, to 
comply with urgent solicitations to reprint this manual, 
was, that I was unwilling to take any step which might 
prove the means of reviving or extending a dispute, which 
I cannot consider as either very honourable, or very pro- 
fitable to the church of God. 

And, as the original publication of the following Letters 
was prompted by unprovoked and violent attacks, and was 
made merely in self-defence ; so their appearance in this 
new form is occasioned by a similar cause. After reposing 
in quietness for more than twenty years, they have been, 
recently, again called up to public view, and subjected to 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. yii 

attacks marked by great vehemence and confidence. Of 
these attacks, it is not deemed necessary to take any fur- 
ther notice than to say, that their violence and their 
oflfensive imputations have created a new demand for the 
vs^ork, and thus afforded an opportunity of presenting it 
again to the public in a more convenient form. This is 
the only reply that I at present intend to give to any 
recent assailant. And I hope that every candid reader, 
after attentive consideration, will be of the opinion that 
more was not called for. 

In preparing the work for a second edition, T have 
revised the whole with as much care as my circumstances 
allowed. And, although the further reading and reflection 
of twenty years, have enabled me to detect some mistakes, 
and to reconsider and modify the statements in a few places ; 
— yet I can truly say, that the amount of my modification 
has generally been, to urge my former reasonings with 
new confidence ; to array my old authorities with addi- 
tional, instead of diminished force ; and, in general, to 
manifest what I have really felt,— a greatly augmented 
assurance of the soundness of my original conclusions. 

With regard to my quotations from the fathers, and 
other writers, I think it proper to say, once for all, that I 
have endeavoured to make them with all the fidelity of 
which I am capable. Those who are familiar with such 
matters need not be reminded, that, frequently, out of a 
folio page, not more than half a dozen lines have any 
direct bearing on the purpose of the extract; and that if 
these are exhibited without any uncandid wresting from 
their connection, the real spirit of the author is set forth 
with sufiicient accuracy. If in any instance, in the follow- 
ing pages, an offence has been committed against this sound 
principle, it has not been done intentionally. It is, indeed, 
as common as it is easy, when an adversary is incommoded 
by a quotation in the way of authority, to complain of it as 
unfaithfully made, or as disingenuously separated from its 



viii PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

proper connection. But of the truth of such complaints, 
every intelligent reader must judge for himself. I can 
sincerely declare, that after an attentive review of every 
page, I have permitted nothing to retain its place but what 
I verily believe may be firmly sustained ; and that if I had 
possessed time and health to make further alterations, they 
would have been employed in adding what I honestly 
deem new evidence of the relevancy and force of every 
thing that I have advanced. 

Nothing, my Christian friends, is further from my inten- 
tion, in any thing which you will find in the following pages, 
than to attack the episcopal church. I have no hostility to 
that denomination of Christians. Those who prefer Prelacy 
to Presbyterianism, are cordially welcome, for me, and, 
I am perfectly confident, for the whole Presbyterian church, 
to the enjoyment of all the advantages which they see or 
imagine in that form of ecclesiastical government. I have 
not the least doubt, indeed, that prelacy is an unscriptural 
error; an anwarranted innovation on apostolic simplicity: 
but such an innovation as a man may adopt with zeal, and 
yet be an excellent Christian, and an heir of eternal bless- 
edness. To all such Episcopalians as Whitefield and Her- 
vey in former times, and as Newton, Scott, and others of 
similar stamp in later periods, I can cordially " bid God 
speed," and sincerely rejoice in their success. Were the 
world filled with such men, I, for one, should be ready to 
say : Let their spirit reign from the rising to the setting 
sun ! With the utmost sincerity, then, can I declare, that no 
feeling of animosity toward Episcopalians, as such, has 
prompted me to speak in the language of the following 
pages. It is my unfeigned desire, and a desire which becomes 
stronger as I advance in life, that all who have '^ received 
like precious faith through the righteousness of God, and 
our Saviour, Jesus Christ,^' may live together " as one 
body in Christ, and every one members one of another." 
And I can further declare that it always gives me sensible 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. ix 

pain to engage in any controversy, even in self defence, 
which tends to produce even temporary alienation among 
those who ought to be united by the bonds of our common 
hope. 

But when Episcopalians belong to that part of their 
denomination — a very small part, as I hope and trust — who 
not only believe that prelacy is a divine institution, but 
that every other form of ecclesiastical government must be 
rejected as rebellion against God : when they persuade 
themselves, not only that the human invention which they 
embrace, is truth, but that nothing else can be truth ; that 
where there is no ministry episcopally ordained, there is 
no church at all, no ministry, no valid ordinances, no 
people in covenant with God, and, of course, no warranted 
hope of divine mercy through our Lord Jesus Christ ; 
when, as a native and necessary consequence of these opi- 
nions, they consider it as unlawful to indulge in any 
religious intercourse with non-episcopalians ; and regard 
it as an act of fidelity to Christ to stand aloof from all who 
do not belong to their own body, however pious their 
spirit and exemplary their lives ; nay, however manifestly, 
in all other respects, they may bear his image, and do his 
will ; when they think it incumbent upon them to decline 
every act which would imply acknowledging as brethren 
in Christ the most devout and heavenly-minded Christians 
who do not stand in their particular line of fancied ecclesi- 
astical genealogy ; and to refuse all communion and co- 
operation with them, even in the most hallowed work of 
Christian benevolence ; and, further, when they think it a 
duty to take every opportunity, in public and private, to de- 
nounce non-episcopalians as aliens from Christ, and call 
upon them to renounce their principles, and attach them- 
selves to their sect, under the heaviest penalties ; I say, 
when Episcopalians take this ground, it is difficult to tell 
wherein their principle differs from the corresponding 
principle of the papists. They evidently take a stand hos- 



X PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

tile both to the letter and spirit of the Bible, They ad- 
vance claims alike presumptuous, unreasonable, and mis- 
chievous. They teach doctrines which have an obvious 
tendency to place an outward ceremonial above the 
" weightier matters of the law 5" and to turn away the 
minds of men from the vital spirit of our holy religion, 
to ** fable and endless genealogies, which minister questions 
rather than godly edifying.'^ In short, they contend for 
principles, the tendency of which is to beget narrow views, 
sectarian pride, and blind superstition ; and to bring back 
the darkness and the thraldom of those ages when fallible 
mortals undertook to be the vicars of Christ upon earth, 
and to make their followers believe, that they held in their 
hands the spiritual rights, and the immortal hopes of their 
fellow men.* 

I rejoice, my respected brethren, that Presbyterians have 
never been chargeable with attempting to maintain opi- 
nions so unscriptural and pernicious. I rejoice that our 
ecclesiastical formularies, as well as our private sentiments, 
are, universally, alien from such unfounded claims. It gives 
me pleasure to know, that we have never un-churched other 
denominations; never denied the validity of theirordinances; 
never consigned them to the uncovenanted mercies of God ; 
never stood aloof from any churches which we considered 
as holding the fundamental doctrines of our common sal- 
vation ; but have long been in the constant habit of recog- 
nizing as brethren in Christ, and holding communion with, 
all denominations who manifest any practical regard to the 
precious truth, and the holy living, which the Bible repre- 
sents as essential to the Christian character. To this state- 



* Those who desire to see the ground on which this exhibition of high 
church doctrine rests, are referred not only to the statements in the 
following letters ,- but also to the various episcopal publications circulat- 
ing in every part of the United States, both practical and controversial, 
which, by either open avowal, or unavoidable inference, will fully sustain 
all that is here advanced. 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xi 

ment, I am not aware, at present, of a single exception. I 
know, indeed, that we are often stigmatized as an austere 
and bigoted denomination. But this has never been owing 
ta our denying the church character of any of our neigh- 
bouring sisters ; but to our contending for what we deem 
the pecuh'ar and fundamental doctrines of the gospel, and 
endeavouring to enforce, in our communion, that purity of 
life, and that abstraction from the fashionable pleasures of 
the world, which some other denominations do not so care- 
fully discountenance. The truth is, Presbyterians, as such, 
have so little of the spirit of sect; are so ready to join with 
all Christian churches in carrying on any enterprize of 
piety and benevolence ; so ready to take to their bosoms 
all, of every sect or name, who manifest the spirit of Christ; 
and so little disposed to question the standing of any eccle- 
siastical body, on account of its external organization, or 
to contend about church government at all, that they have 
scarcely enough of the sectarian spirit to defend themselves. 
It gives me unspeakable pleasure to contemplate this fea- 
ture in our character as a church. It forms one among the 
numerous evidences that we walk in the footsteps of the 
primitive believers ; that we have imbibed something of 
the spirit of Him, who, when one of his disciples said, 
"Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and 
" we forbade him, because he followeth not with us ;'^ re- 
plied, " Forbid him not, for he that is not against us is for 
us ;" — the spirit of that holy Apostle, who could say, 
" Some, indeed, preach Christ even of envy and strife, 
** and some also of good will. What then? notwithstand- 
" ing every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is 
'* preached ; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.^' 
But, although Presbyterians will not yield to any other 
class of professing Christians whatever, in liberality to 
other denominations ; yet when their principles are assailed, 
there are limits beyond which they consider silence as in- 
consistent with duty. When they are denounced as " aliens 



xii PRELIMINARY LETTER, 

from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the co- 
venant of promise ;" when they are declared, as Presbyte- 
rians, to be no church of Christ, to have no ministry, no 
sacraments, no warranted hope in the mercy of God ; when 
every attempt either to dispense or receive ordinances by 
Presbyterian hands, is pronounced an act of rebellion 
against the Head of the Church ; when we are even repre- 
sented as in a worse condition than the heathen, because 
equally out of God^s covenant, and resisting greater light 
than they j surely it cannot be wrong to say a word in de- 
fence of our principles ; surely it cannot be criminal to 
"give an answer to any one that asketh a reason of the 
*' hope that is in us, provided we do it with meekness and 
"fear.'^ Placing out of view all regard to our own reputa- 
tion, as a Church, fidelity to our Master in heaven, as well 
as fidelity to those who look to us for instruction, undoubt- 
edly requires, that we show, if it be in our power, that " we 
" have not followed cunningly devised fables," but can 
appeal " to the law and the testimony'^ for all that we teach 
the people. 

Allow me, then, my christian friends, before you enter 
on the perusal of the following Letters, to state, with bre- 
vity, in this preliminary address, a few considerations, in- 
tended to show why those high and exclusive claims which 
our Episcopal neighbours are in the habit of urging with a 
zeal and confidence worthy of a better cause, ought to be, 
and must be rejected. And, 

L We cannot find the least warrant for any such exclu- 
sive claims, in the word of God. If Prelacy had been a 
divine institution, and especially, if it had been regarded 
by the inspired writers as the fundamental and essential 
matter which modern high-churchmen represent it, — 
could they have been silent respecting it? Can it be ima- 
gined that they would have left the subject in obscurity or 
doubt ? When they had occasion to speak so frequently 
concerning the christian character and hope; concerning 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xiii 

the church, its nature, foundation, Head, laws, ministers and 
interests ; it is truly marvellous that they should be expli- 
cit on every other point than precisely that whichjwre dl- 
vino prelatists consider as the most vital and important 
of all I Yet is not this manifestly the case, the friends of 
•the claim in question themselves being judges? Have they 
not been constrained a thousand times to confess, that this 
claim is no where distinctly presented or maintained in the 
New Testament ? When the inspired writers undertake 
to tell us what those things are which professing Christians 
ought sacredly to regard, in order to make good their ap- 
propriate character, on what points do they dwell ? Do 
they insist on a particular line of ecclesiastical succession, 
or represent every thing, or, indeed, any thing, as depend- 
ing on a certain form of official investiture ? Do they 
tell the humble inquirer after the way of holiness and 
salvation, that he must be careful, first of all, that he re- 
ceives the sacraments from duly authorized hands; and that, 
whatever he does, he must be found in communion with 
some bishop, who holds his office by regular descent ? Is 
there a syllable which has the most distant resemblance to 
such counsel ? Assuredly there is not. No ; the points 
every where insisted on, as manifesting that the character 
and the hopes of men axe " such as becometh the gospel,'' 
are genuine faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance unto 
life, love to God and man, and habitually endeavouring to 
imbibe the spirit, to imitate the example, and to obey the 
commands of the Redeemer. The directions given are 
every where such as the following : " He that believeth on 
"the Son of God hath everlasting life, and shall not come 
" into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life ; 
" but he that believeth not on the Son of God shall not see 
" life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. There is, 
"therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in 
" Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the 
** spirit. If ye love me, keep my commandments; for he 
3 



XIV PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

" that saith he loveth me, and keepeth not my cbmmand- 
" ments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Let the 
" wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his 
" thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have 
*' mercy upon him, and to our God, and he will abundantly 
^'pardon him. Not by works of righteousness which we 
" have done, but according to his mercy doth he save us, 
''by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the 
" Holy Spirit. As ye have received the Lord Jesus, so 
'' walk ye in him; rooted and built up in him, and estab- 
" lished in the faith, which is according to godliness, and 
"abounding in those works of righteousness which are by 
" Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God." 

Now, I ask, is it conceivable that this could have been 
the tenor of the directions given by the Saviour and his 
inspired Apostles, to inquirers after the. way of christian 
obedience and hope, if they had coincided in opinion with 
modern high-churchmen ? I will venture to say, it cannot 
be, for a moment, supposed. Can we imagine that infinite 
wisdom, and infinite benevolence would undertake to in- 
struct the members of that great community, denominated 
the Church, in their essential duties, and yet say nothing 
about that great point, without which, as some think, all 
her privileges would be a nullity, .and all her hopes vain ? 
Can we believe that the Bible was given for the express 
purpose of being ''a light to our feet, and a lamp to our 
path," in reference to the great interests of Christians, as 
individuals, and as a body ; and yet that it should not con- 
tain one word of explicit instruction in regard to that which 
is alleged to lie at the foundation of the visible church, and 
to be essential to its very existence, and, of course, to the 
validity of all its acts ? That be far from a Being who 
tadapts means to ends with infinite skill, and who does no- 
thing in vain ! The simple and undeniable fact, then, that 
he particular organ ization of the visible church ; the per- 
sons invested with the ordaining power ; and the uninter- 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xv 

nipted succession in a line of prelates^ are not so much as 
mentioned — or, to say the least, make no such figure, in the 
New Testament, as in many volumes of modern episcopal 
origin, — ought to be considered as decisive in this contro- 
versy. Had these principles been entertained at the time 
in which the New Testament was written, and regarded by 
the inspired writers in the same light in which they are 
regarded by some ecclesiastical men at the present day ; 
they could not have been silent respecting them, without 
forfeiting all claim to christian benevolence, nay, to com- 
mon honesty. They would have dwelt upon them in every 
connection ; have repeated them at every turn ; and have 
made this subject clear, whatever else was left in the dark. 
Now, as they, by universal confession, have not done 
THIS ; as NO ONE of their number has done it ; it is as plain 
as any moral demonstration can be, that the principles and 
claims in question were then unknown, and, consequently, 
have no divine warrant. 

II. Another strong presumptive argument against the 
claim of modern high-churchmen, may be drawn from the 
well known fact, that almost every part of the outward 
ceremonial of the visible church has actually been 
CHANGED, FROM TIME TO TIME, without affecting the ex- 
istence or order of the spiritual community. During the 
first, or patriarchial dispensation, those who ministered in 
holy things, received, so far as we are informed, no formal 
ordination at all. Yet their services were considered as 
valid, and were accepted of God. When the Mosaic, or 
ceremonial economy was introduced, the first investiture 
of the high priest was, by divine direction, conducted by 
Moses, who was not a high priest, nor even a common 
priest, himself. On all subsequent accessions of the high 
priest, he was inducted into ofiice in a different manner; 
such an officer as Moses having never afterwards officiated 
on a similar occasion. Before the coming of Christ, the 
regular line of hereditary succession was repeatedly broken; 



xvi PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

yet this was not considered as affecting the validity of the 
high priest's ministrations; and even the Saviour and his 
apostles, notwithstanding this, repeatedly acknowledged, 
from time to time, the existing authority of that oiFicer. 
When the New Testament economy was introduced, a 
method of investing men with the sacred office was adopted, 
which had never been connected with the Aaronic priest- 
hood. This was " the laying on of the hands of the pres- 
bytery ;" for we never find an instance, in apostolic times, 
of an ordination performed without the presence and co- 
operation of a plurality of ordainers. Yet still there was 
diversity even here. Sometimes we find ordinations perform- 
ed by apostles ; sometimes, during their lifetime, by ecclesi- 
astical men who were evidently not apostles. Similar 
changes and diversity of practice have taken place, from 
the earliest times, in reference to many other ordinances : 
and yet the visible church, from the family of Adam to 
the present day, has not ceased to be the same in substance. 
Nay, it is one of the principle&>of '^ecclesiastical polity," 
in which the friends of prelacy, and especially the highest 
toned among them, have always agreed with the "judicious 
Hooker," as he is commonly styled, that the Church has 
power to decree, alter, and modify rites and ceremonies 
at pleasure. I shall not now stay to inquire whether this 
opinion be correct or not. It is quite sufficient for my 
purpose that the most zealous advocates for high toned 
prelacy, fully believe and maintain it ; and insist that every 
part of the external organization of the church, may be 
added to, or dispensed with, at the discretion of the church 
herself, excepting the single feature of the transmission of 
ecclesiastical office and authority in the line of prelates. 
Now, I ask, what good reason can be given why this mat- 
ter should form the only exception ? If various other things, 
confessedly found in the New Testament, may be altered 
or omitted, without destroying the being, or even the well- 
being of the church ; why should the point of prelacy be 



PRELIMIMARY LETTER. xvii 

alone unalterable ; especially when we find that the mode 
of investing with the sacred office, has been, in fact, again 
and again altered, and the integrity of the church still pre- 
served ? Even supposing then, that we actually found pre- 
lacy pourtrayed in the Nevv Testament, as a historical verity 
in the apostolic age, which we are very sure is not the case ; 
still, according to the general principle of our Episcopal 
brethren, the church, if she thought proper, would have 
just as much right to alter this, as any other part of her 
external arrangements. Besides, let it be considered that 
ministers of the gospel who are not prelates, are empowered, 
in the Episcopal church, to preach, and administer the 
ordinance of baptism. Now, in this ordinance, according 
to the doctrine of high churchmen, the recipients of it are 
regenerated; that is, not only brought into a new relation 
to the church, but "born again, '^ by the power of the Holy 
Ghost. Does it require less power, then, to regenerate men, 
than to set an individual apart to the sacred office? Is that 
man who is qualified to proclaim the message of salvation, 
and to administer the sacraments of Christ's house, and thus 
to separate between the precious and the vile, destitute of 
power to participate in the work of inducting into office 
one who shall be equal to himself, and qualified to perform 
the same duties'? There is, surely, a wonderful inconsistency 
here! I am not ignorant that learned and eloquent Episco- 
pal writers have attempted, and, as they supposed, with 
success, to demonstrate, that, while all the other parts of 
the external administration of the visible church are mutable, 
and may be altered at the pleasure of the church, the 
method of successive ordinations in the line of prelates, 
cannot be touched without destroj/ing the very, existence 
of the church. I am, however, so far from being satisfied 
with their reasoning, that I am more and more convinced 
that it leads to the grossest absurdity and error. That which 
God has commanded, is immutable, until he is pleased to 
change it; and nothing else is beyond the reach of modifi- 



xviii PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

cation and change by the church, excepting what h thus 
enjoined. To take any other ground, may be very con- 
sistent for Papists ; but for Protestants, is a high-handed 
departure from their essential principles. Now, the highest 
toned prelates acknowledge, unanimously, that there is no 
express command in the New Testament, establishing or 
enjoining diocesan episcopacy. The utmost that they con- 
tend for is, that there are facts stated by the inspired writers 
which indicate that this form of church government then 
existed. Even this allegation is wholly unfounded. No 
such statement is made, as has been often demonstrated. 
But if it ivere, historic fact is not divine command. To 
maintain, then, that, even if prelacy could be proved to 
have been at that time in actual use, it must for ever re- 
main in use, and can never be dispensed with, without de- 
stroying the very being of the church, is surel}^ a doctrine 
which comes with a very ill grace from those who assert 
that every thing else relating to the order of the visible 
church, however plainly represented in scripture as exist- 
ing in the apostolic age, may be changed without incurring 
any such penalty. 

III. Another consideration is worthy of notice here. 
The original reformers of the Church of England, 
were so far from maintaining the divine right of prelacy, 
that their avowed opinions, and their whole conduct evinced 
a diflferent belief. In the sixth letter of the first series, in 
the following volume, some evidence in- support of this 
position will be found ; and a greater amount of testimony 
might be arrayed, to almost any extent. The truth is, the 
first reformers of that church were substantially Presby- 
terians in principle, and earnestly wished to conduct the 
reformation of their church after the model of the reformed 
churches on the continent of Europe. And when they ac- 
cepted a system of discipline and order much less remote 
from the popish system, and much less conformed to the 
Helvetic and other continental churches than they wished, 



PRELLIMINARY LETTER. xix 

it was only on the plea of temporary accommodation to the 
prejudices of the times, and with the hope of obtaining a 
more apostolic and thorough reformation afterwards. This 
is so unequivocally testified by the laborious and impartial 
Episcopal historian, Sirype, and by the candid Bishop 
Burnet, as well as other historians of undoubted reputation, 
that it can be doubted by no one who has taken the proper 
means to inform himself on the subject. • With this fact 
accorded the whole of their treatment of the foreign re- 
formed churches, all of whom were Presbyterian in their 
ordination. With those churches the original reformers of 
England maintained the most respectful and affectionate 
intercourse; recognized them as beloved sisters in Christ; 
took their ministers by the hand as validly invested with 
the sacred office ; admitted them in various cases, without 
re-ordination, to preferment in their own church ; and con- 
sulted them on the various measures of the day with the 
utmost deference. But if the English reformers had be- 
lieved in the doctrine of modern high-churchmen, and had 
been, at the same time, honest, consistent men, could they 
possibly have maintained this fraternal intercourse with the 
foreign Protestants ? I do not ask whether we can consider 
such a course 2iS prohahle, but whether we can conceive it 
as possible? The firm integrity, and ardent piety of those 
venerable reformers have been much celebrated. Their 
adherence to the dictates of conscience and of God, with the 
courage and constancy becoming martyrs of Christ, has long 
been the theme of admiration and praise. But if they had 
taken the same views of prelacy with many of their modern 
eulogists, and yet acted as they did with respect to non- 
Episcopal Churches, we should be reduced to the necessity 
of branding them as men altogether regardless of principle. 
But they took no such views. The proof of this is com- 
plete. It was reserved for their successors, as they de- 
parted from the apostolic spirit of the reformers, to fall 



XX PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

into opinions, and prefer claims, as thoroughly popish in 
their character, as they are pernicious in their consequences. 

The foregoing statement, moreover, is fully confirmed 
by the principles and reasonings which the immediate suc- 
cessors of the original reformers advanced, when they 
began to contend for the several parts of the system which 
they thought proper to establish. It is well known that in 
the early part of the reign of queen Elizabeth, when the 
Puritans plead for still further reformation, and when the 
leading points of difference between them, and the court 
reformers, were disclosed, the following fundamental 
principles were avowed by the two parties respectively. 

In the first place, it was agreed on all sides, that the 
Holy Scriptures were a perfect rule oi faith; but the bishops 
and court reformers did not allow them to be a standard of 
disciplineov church government-, affirming that our Saviour 
and his apostles left it to the discretion of the civil magis- 
trate, in those places in which Christianity should obtain, 
to accommodate the government of the church to the polity 
of the state. But the Puritans contended that the Holy 
Scriptures ought to be regarded as a standard of govern- 
ment and discipline as well as of doctrine; at least that 
nothing should be imposed as necessary but what was ex- 
pressly contained in them, or deduced from them by neces- 
sary consequence. 

In the second place, the court reformers maintained, that 
the practice of the church for ih^ first four centuries, was 
a proper standard of church government and discipline ; 
and in some respects a better standard than that of the 
apostles, which, according to them, was only accommo- 
dated to the infant state of the church, while it was under 
persecution ; whereas the model of the third, and especially 
the fourth century, was better adapted, as they thought, 
to the grandeur of a national establishment. On the other 
hand, the Puritans were for keeping close to the Scriptures 
in all the main principles of church government, and for 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxi 

admitting no church officers or ordinances but such as are 
evidently found in scripture. They maintained that the 
form of government ordained by the apostles was accord- 
ing to the model of the Jewish Synagogue, and was designed 
as a pattern for the church in after ages, not to be departed 
from in any of its main principles. And, therefore, they 
rejected all the customs of the Papacy, and the practice of 
the first three or four centuries, excepting so far as they 
corresponded with the scriptures. • 

In the third place, the court reformers maintained, 
that the church of Rome was a true church, though corrupt 
as to some points of doctrine and government; that all her 
ministrations were valid ; and that the Pope was a true 
bishop oi Rome, though not of the universal church. They 
thought it necessary to maintain this, for the support of the 
authority of their bishops ; who could not otherwise make 
out a line of succession from the apostles. But the Puri- 
tans affirmed, that the Pope was antichrist ; that the church 
of Rome was not a true church ; and that all her ministra- 
tions were superstitious and idolatrous. They, therefore, 
renounced her communion, and utterly declined founding 
the validity of their ordinations and ordinances upon any 
such uninterrupted line, through them, as their opponents 
considered as indispensable. 

Finally, the court reformers maintained, that things in- 
different in their own nature, which are neither commanded 
nor forbidden in the scriptures, such as rites, ceremonies, 
&c., might be settled, determined, and made necessary by 
the command of the civil magistrate ; and that, when thus 
commanded, it was the indispensable duty of all good sub- 
jects to observe them. On the other hand, the Puritans 
contended, that those things which Christ had left indif- 
ferent, ought not to be made necessary by any human 
laws ; but that it is the privilege of Christians to stand fast 
in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free ; and, fur- 
ther, that such rites and ceremonies as had been abused to 
4 



xxii PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

idolatry, and manifestly tended to lead men back to popery 
and superstition, were no longer indifferent, but were to 
be rejected as unlawful.* 

No discerning mind can possibly mistake either the 
scope of the foregoing principles, or the plain inferences 
which they warrant. It is manifest that the court reformers 
did not venture, did not even pretend, to make their pri- 
mary appeal to scripture, in support of the form of church 
government, which they ultimately adopted ; nay, that 
they thought the state of the church in ihe /ou9'th century y 
when supported by the imperial government, a more suit- 
able model for a church established by law, than its state in 
the apostolic age, and as exhibited in the New Tetament. 
In other words, they virtually conceded, that the plan of 
church government which they thought proper to adopt, 
was not founded in the word of God, but in human pru- 
dence and the will of the civil magistrate. Conscious that 
they were governed in the course which they pursued more 
by the dictation of the Queen, than by the laws of Christ, 
they openly maintained the principle, that it was not 
necessary, or even proper, to take the scriptures as their 
guide in the government of the church. This was, evi- 
dently, placing the whole matter on a footing which would 
warrant Presbyterianism or Independency, just as well as 
Prelacy, if either should happen to be preferred by the 
monarch. It is hoped that, none who have the least re- 
spect for the memory of those venerable men, who adorn- 
ed the early history of the Protestant church oi Engl and y 
and several of whom laid down their lives in maintaining 
what they deemed the truth, will ever think again of plead- 
ing their authority in favour of principles so earnestly con- 
tended for by modern high churchmen. They were either 
dishonest, time-serving men, or they were strangers to 
doctrines so entirely at war with their whole conduct. 

♦ Neal's HistoTy of the Puritans^ Vol. I. p. 96, 97. 4to. edition. 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxiii 

Those who are acquainted with their history, will not hesi- 
tate a moment in adopting the latter alternative. 

IV. But further; the principles and conduct of the lead- 
ing divines of the Church of England^ who immediately 
SUCCEEDED THE ORIGINAL REFORMERS, will provo, on ex- 
amination, equally instructive and decisive. A particular 
discussion of this point will be found in more than one of 
th,e following letters. But some further testimony on the 
same subject is at hand, and worthy of the most grave con- 
sideration. 

When such divines as Bishop Hall, Archbishop Usher^ 
&c., men of colossal weight and strength, as pillars, in their 
day, of the church to which they belonged, could declare, 
as the latter at least did, that he could, with all readiness 
and affection, receive the sacraments from the hands of 
Presbyterian ministers; and, of course, considered their 
ministrations as entirely valid; and when the former could 
consent to sit for several months as a member of the Pres- 
byterian synod of Dort, and commune with that body in 
prayer, preaching, and the holy Eucharist; it is perfectly 
impossible that they should have maintained the opinion 
concerning Prelacy, which it is the object of this volume to 
oppose. But on this point I shall not dwell. It is well 
known that in the day of the great and good men whose 
names have been just mentioned, their monarch, Charles 
I., was involved in conflicts with the parliament which, in 
a few years afterwards terminated in his decapitation. In 
the course of these conflicts the king was urged to consent 
to a proposed act of the parliament for abolishing Episco- 
pacy. This he utterly refused, alleging among other things, 
that Episcopacy was more friendly to monarchy than 
Presbytery was, and pleading " conscience," against a 
consent to the proposed measure. Writing on this subject 
to his devoted Episcopal friends and counsellors, Lord 
Jermyn, Lord Culpepper, and Mr. Jishburnharriy he ex- 
presses himself thus : — 



xxiv PREJJMINARY LETTER. 

" Show me any precedent wherever presbyterial govern- 
" ment and regal was together, without perpetual rebel- 
" lions ; , which was the cause that necessitated the king, 
" my father, to change that government in Scotland. And 
" even in France, where they are but upon tolerance, 
*« (which in likelihood should cause moderation) did they 
" ever sit still so long as they had power to rebel ? And it 
" cannot be otherwise, for the ground of their doctrine is 
" anti-monarchical. Indeed to prove that clearly, would 
** require more time, and a better pen than I have. I will 
" say, without hyperbole, that there was not a wiser man 
" since Solomon, than he who said — no bishop, no king." 
To this the enlightened and cordial friends of the monarch, 
and of the Church of England just named, made the fol- 
lowing reply. ^* If by conscience your meaning is, that 
'' you are obliged to do all that is in your power to support 
" and maintain that function of bishops, as that which is 
'' the most ancient, reverend, and pious government of the 
" church — we fully and heartily concur with you therein. 
'< But if by conscience is intended to assert, that episcopacy 
" Injure divino exclusive, whereby no Protestant (or ra- 
" ther Christian) church, can be acknowledged for such 
" without a bishop, we must therein crave leave wholly to 
'^ differ. And if we be in error, we are in good company ; 
" there not being (as we have cause to believe) six per- 

" SONS OF THE PrOTESTANT RELIGION OF THE OTHER OPIN- 

<* ION. Thus much we can add, that, at the treaty of JJx- 
'' bridgCy NONE of your divines then present, (though 
" much provoked thereunto) would maintain that (we 
«* MIGHT SAY uncharitable) OPINION ; no, not privately 
" among your commissioners." 

The men who wrote thus, were intelligent, well in- 
formed men, true sons of the church, and intimately con- 
versant with the leading ecclesiastics as well as civilians, 

* Clarem.ox^s State Papers, Vol. ii. p 260. 2r4. 202. 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxv 

in the kingdom. And yet they could say, with confidence, 
that they did not believe there were " six persons of the 
protestant religion" who entertained the exclusive opinion 
which they reprobate. 

The truth is, as long as doctrinal orthodoxy, and piety 
had a general prevalence in the Church of England^ which, 
it is well known, was the case prior to the administration 
of Archbishop Laud, the high-church claims which I am 
opposing, had very few advocates among the truly learned 
and respectable divines of that church. It was only when 
evangelical truth and spirituality greatly declined, that 
claims so much at war with reason, with scripture, and 
with the communion of saints, began to be popular. And 
I have no doubt that it may be maintained, as a gene- 
ral position, that, from that time to the present, the doc- 
trine in question has found most favour with the worldly 
and heterodox part of the English establishment; and been 
most disbelieved and opposed by the truly evangelical and 
exemplary portion both of the clergy and people. 

V. Again ; the advocates of the high church and exclu- 
sive doctrine which is here opposed, will appear, when 
their case is examined, liable to the charge of extreme 
PRESuMPTuousNEss. When we see a very small sect, in a 
great religious community, turning'away, like the Pharisees 
of old, from all contact with the rest of their brethren ; 
alleging that their little body alone is in the right way, and 
that all the rest of mankind are outcasts and reprobates ; — 
we, instinctively, recoil from such a claim as arrogant and 
presumptuous in a high degree ; and demand that the evi- 
dence in its support be uncommonly clear and unquestion- 
able. It is very possible, indeed, that a small minority 
may be right, nay, the only body in the world that is 
right. This was actually the case with the « little flock" 
which the Saviour gathered in the days of his flesh, and who 
were '« every where spoken against." But then that " little 
flock" was armed with a power and an evidence which 



xxvi PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

ought to have convinced the whole world. But when 
every thing of this kind is wanting : — when without evi- 
dence, nay, in spite of the strongest evidence to the con- 
trary, a small body, with the narrowest prejudices, and the 
most determined exclusiveness, sets up a claim which not 
only virtually, but formally and necessarily places all the 
immense majority who differ from it, in the situation of 
aliens from all the gracious promises of heaven ; — every 
impartial judge will pronounce such a body liable to a 
charge of presumptuousness as offensive as it is groundless. 
When the reformation from popery took place, it became 
a question with all the reformed churches, throughout Eu- 
rope, what form of government they would adopt ? It 
would have been just as easy for them to adopt the pre- 
latical as any other ; nay easier. It was that to which they 
had been all accustomed for a number of centuries. And 
there was no difficulty in the way of their prelates, if they 
had chosen to have them, obtaining a regular canonical in- 
vestiture. There was a sufficient number of bishops who 
came over from the Romish church to the Protestant, to have 
peopled the whole ecclesiastical world with their order, if 
it had been deemed desirable. What, then, was the 
fact? Why that all the reformers on the continent of Eu- 
rope, without one solitary exception, declared in favour of 
the doctrine of ministerial parity, as the truly primitive 
and apostolic doctrine ; acknowledged prelacy to be a 
human invention ; universally sanctioned the principle of 
Presbyterian ordination ; and when any of them gave to 
certain ministers a kind of superintending power, uniform- 
ly declared, that they did not consider it as founded at all 
in scripture, but as a mere matter of human prudence, 
adapted to the secular circumstances in which particular 
communities were placed. To this statement in reference 
to the reformers on the continent of Europe, I cannot recol- 
lect a single exception. Now, I ask, could men have been 
possibly placed in circumstances more favourable to an in 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxvii 

telligent and impartial decision of this question ? For, in 
the first place, they were learned men ; a number of them 
transcendently so. Then the great body of them were fer- 
vently pious, devoted men, who gave abundant evidence 
that they searched the scriptures dih'gently, and were in- 
capable of departing from their conscientious convictions 
of truth and duty. Men who evinced so much of the spirit 
of martyrs, cannot be suspected of compromising what they 
honestly believed to be the will of God in this concern. 
Again, they were placed in circumstances which left them 
perfectly unshackled in their decision of this matter. The 
civil rulers, every where, so far as I have been able to 
learn, left them at perfect liberty to adopt that form of ec- 
clesiastical government which they judged to be most for 
edification. Yet, in these circumstances, they all — all — 
Lutherans and Reformed, came to the same conclusion. I 
repeat it — these learned, godly, devoted men — whether in 
Germany or France, whether in Holland or Switzer- 
land, whether in Sweden Denmark ov Scotland, — with- 
out any particular concert, and while they difiered widely 
on some other points — in reference to this came to the same 
conclusion ; — all agreed that the primitive, apostolic plan 
was that of ministerial parity ; that Presbyterian ordination 
was not only just as valid as any other, but most con- 
formed to the scriptural model ; and that wherever this 
model was in any degree departed from, the variation 
was, ot course, to be referred merely to human prudence, 
which a majority of them supposed might lawfully be ex- 
ercised in modifying and arranging matters of church go- 
vernment. Now these are, verily, most marvellous facts, 
if, as modern high-churchmen tell us, the evidence in fa- 
vour of prelacy, from scripture and early antiquity, is 
clear, undoubted, and such as all honest, impartial inqui- 
rers cannot but see and acknowledge. Were all the great 
and good men who conducted the reformation on the Eu- 
ropean continent so smitten with blindness, or so perverted 
by prejudice, as not to be able to perceive that which some 



xxviii PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

would persuade us is as clear to every sober inquirer as the 
light of day ; or, seeing it, were they so unprincipled 
as to set conscience and divine authority all at defiance ? 
While this universal and most wonderful concurrence 
of opinion in favour of ministerial parity, as taught in 
scripture, pervaded the reformed churches on the continent 
of Europe, without a single exception, and also in North 
Britain; England stood alone in adopting a different 
plan of ecclesiastical government ; and the reasons of her 
adopting this plan are too manifest to be mistaken by the 
most superficial inquirer. In that country the movements 
in favour of the reformation were begun by the monarch; 
not, as all the world knows, from any love to truth or 
piety, but under the impulse of his pride and voluptuous- 
ness. Having, from these unworthy motives, broken off 
from the papal see, and made himself pope in his own 
dominions, instead of the Roman Pontiff*, he ordered every 
thing, in the church as well as the state, with despotic 
sway, and received no more of the principles of the enlight- 
ened and holy men on the continent than suited his own 
blind and unworthy policy. When Henry VIII. died, 
which was not until the year after Luther had finished his 
work in Germany, and gone to his blessed reward ; Eng- 
land might still be said to be a popish country ; Protestant, 
indeed, in name ; but really and effectually disburdened of 
no important part of that mass of superstition in doctrine 
and order which had so long depressed and corrupted 
Christendom. Some progress in the hallowed work of 
reformation was made in the next reign ; but by reason of 
the minority and feebleness of the amiable king, every 
thing was in the hands of the bishops and nobles, who 
would naturally be disposed to retain that form of ecclesi- 
astical government to which they had been accustomed, and 
especially which they were tempted to prefer as involving 
the continuance of their own honours. The reformation 
could not really be said to be established in England until 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxix 

Elizabeth, who began to reign in 1558, had been some 
time on the throne. This Queen, haughty, despotic, super- 
stitious, and passionately fond of show and parade in eccle- 
siastical as well as civil affairs, was so far from being dis- 
posed to carry the reformation further than it had been 
carried in the reign of her brother Edward, that almost 
every movement was rather the other way. The bishops 
and court clergy were naturally inclined, as rnight have 
been expected to retain prelacy, in other words, their own 
pre-eminence : but even if they had been otherwise mind- 
ed, the Queen would have controlled their inclination ; as 
she manifested a strong desire for a splendid hierarchy, and 
restored several of the superstition^ of popery which had 
been set aside in the reign of Edward. Can any one be 
surprised that in these circumstances, prelacy was retained 
in the Church oi England! To suppose that a set of pre- 
lates would be likely, of their own accord, to prefer a plan 
destructive of their own powers and emoluments, is, of all 
suppositions, one of the most improbable. But they could 
not have carried into execution such a plan, even if they 
had been disposed. And yet high-churchmen gravely tell 
us, that the circumstance of the reformation in England, 
from its rise to its consummation, being in the hands of the 
bishops, affords the strongest presumptive proof of its being 
conducted on sounder principles than on the continent, 
where none of the leading reformers were prelates. This 
is, surely, one of the most extraordinary positions ever 
attempted to be maintained ! The presumption is, mani- 
festly, all the other way. The principal reformers on the 
continent, were more deeply learned than those in Eng- 
land. That they were at least as pious, and as heroically 
firm in acting agreeably to their conscientious convictions, 
no impartial judge will hesitate to admit. The fathers of 
reform on the continent, in rejecting episcopacy, resisted 
the strongest temptations of worklly ambition, for they 
might have had it if they pleased ; and if they had chosen 
5 



XXX PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

to restore it, can any one of them have doubted, or can 
any thinking mind now doubt, that all eyes would have 
been turned to themselves as candidates for the prelacy ? 
whereas the fathers of the Protestant Church of England, 
in retaining the prelatical feature of their government, 
yielded to the plainest dictates of selfishness. The course 
they took was in support of their own authority and ho- 
nours. The continental reformers were at full liberty to 
follow their own judgment in this matter. But those of 
England, at every step, were restrained, if not coerced, by 
the hand of despotic power in the state. And, finally, we 
have conclusive evidence, as T have shown elsewhere, that 
even the English reformers, while they thought best to 
establish prelacy in the church over which they presided, 
by no means considered it as resting on the footing of di- 
vine right, but regarded it as a matter of human expediency 
alone. Now, when the facts were notoriously as has been 
stated ; when England, among all the protestant churches 
stood absolutely alone in retaining the prelatical system ; 
and when even she regarded it, in the beginning, not as an 
apostolic institution, but as an ancient, venerable, and con- 
venient human one, and cheerfully acknowledged as breth- 
ren those who rejected it ; the high-church doctrine now 
so confidently maintained by some, having never been 
thought of by one of their number ; I say, when these are 
are unquestionable facts, on which side does the presump- 
tion lie ? Surely i'f human authority is of any value in this 
matter: if the talents, . learning and piety of those who 
were instrumental in founding the several reformed church- 
es, are to have any weight in our present inquiry, the 
presumption is extreme in favour of the side of ministerial 
parity ; and those who conclude that this side must be 
wrong, when only a single nation adopted the opposite: and 
even that nation disclaimed adopting it on the principle 
of divine right — must be considered as chargeable with a 
presumptuousness which it is difficult to estimate. 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxxi 

VJ. The high-church doctrine is, further, in the opinion 
of some of the wisest and best men in our land, as irra- 
tional as it is, presumptuous. That is, it so palpably con- 
tradicts some of the most obvious dictates of reason, and 
some of the most settled principles of our common Chris- 
tianity, that we run no risk in saying, on this ground alone, 
it cannot possibly be true. 

The man who can really believe that there is some won- 
derful influence flowing from the hands of a diocesan 
bishop, which can be imparted by those of no other eccle- 
siastic ; that those who are fully authorized to preach the 
gospel, and administer the sacraments appointed by Christ, 
have yet no power to admit others to equal authority 
with themselves ; that there is a mystical and indelible 
character impressed by a prelate's touch ; that the validity 
of all official ministrations in the church of G-od depends on 
an " uninterrupted succession" of canonical ordinations, 
following in a regular line from the apostles to the present 
day ; and that of course, the validity of all gospel ordinan- 
ces, and the warrant of all hopes in the covenanted mercy 
of God, are suspended on a point of ecclesiastical genealogy, 
which no man living can ascertain, and which not one pro- 
fessing Christian in ten thousand istompetent to examine; 
I say, the man who can really believe all this, and, conse- 
quently, rest every Christian's comfort and peace, — not 
where the Bible has placed them, — but on the disputable 
and varying formalities of fallible men ; such a man, it 
appears to me, is prepared to swallow any absurdity. He has 
put his understanding under lock and key. To say, that 
he departs from the whole tenor of Christian character 
and confidence, as laid down in the Bible, is to express but 
part of the truth. He turns his back on reason, as manifest- 
ly as he does on the spirit of holy scripture. He is in a 
fit state of mind to receive and dige&t any notion, however 
preposterous, that superstition or sinister design may pro- 
pose to his acceptance. 



xxxii PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

VIL The high-churcli doctrine which it is the design of 
the following pages to oppose, cannot fail of being discre- 
dited, in the view of all serious and impartial inquirers, by 
^he UNHALLOWED CONNECTIONS in which it is commonly 
found. By this is meant, that the greater part of those 
who hold this exclusive and unscriptural doctrine, are 
found to associate with it, as parts of the same system, a 
variety of principles of the most delusive and mischievous 
kind. It is not asserted, that the principles to which I 
allude are always found in connection with the doctrine 
under consideration ; but that this is generally the case, 
and that there is, beye.id all question, a natural alliance 
between them. 

The principles referred to are such as these : — that bap- 
tism is regeneration : — ^na the ordinances of the gospel, 
when administered by the proper hands, have a kind of 
opus operatum, as it has been technically called, or neces- 
sary and immediate influence, depending upon the admin- 
istrator being in the regular succession from the apostles x- — 
that the church, as such, is the only authorized interpreter 
of the Bible : — that there can be no acceptable or valid in- 
tercourse between heaven and earth, but through the me- 
dium of a canonical priesthood : — that the sacraments are 
necessary to salvation : — and that the external exhibition 
of them is a guaranty of saving grace to all who receive 
them. Such doctrines ss these are naturally, I had almost 
said necessarily, connected with the high-toned notions of 
prelacy, which some modern Episcopalians.ehtertain. For 
if ecclesiastics of a particular description are the only au- 
thorized negotiators between God and man ; and if none, 
however devout and exemplary, can have any access to the 
mercy seat, but through their official agency ; and if all 
who enjoy this agency with outward regularity, are of 
course safe ; — then I scruple not to aver that all the princi- 
ples which I have mentioned follow of course. No won- 
der, therefore, that they are commonly found, in a greater 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxxiii 

or less degree, in union with the offensive claim in ques- 
tion. These principles, however, ought, with all sober 
minds, utterly to discredit the doctrine from which they 
naturally flow. Corruption and delusion are stamped upon 
them with a distinctness not to be mistaken. They are 
grossly superstitious. They tend to put rites and forms, 
in place of the Saviour as the ground of hope. They are, 
of course, adapted to deceive and destroy. Their reception 
is a revival of the claims of " the man of sin, the son of 
perdition,'' who professes to be the only authorized vicar 
of Christ upon earth. Their tendency,' so far as they pre- 
vail, is to bring back the darkness and the thraldom of those 
ages, when haughty ecclesiastics undertook to be sovereign 
dispensers of the grace of God, and to make men believe, 
that they held in their hands all the spiritual privileges, 
and all the eternal hopes of their fellow men ! 

Can there be any thing presumptuous, my Christian 
brethren, in deciding that a claim which bears such rela- 
tions, and leads to such unhallowed results, cannot be a 
scriptural one ? No ; if our Saviour's test be safe and in- 
fallible ; if we are to know principles as well as men *^by 
their fruits ;" then we may confidently pronounce, that 
the claim in questson is destitute of all divine warrant, and 
of every character which ought to recommend it to sober 
minded Christians, who wish to be able to " give a reason'^ 
for that which they believe. 

VIII. The claim under consideration, will further appear 
altogether inadmissible, if we consider its manifest and of- 
fensive UNCHARiTABLENESs. It uot ouly virtually, but 
formally and avowedly shuts out from the visible church, 
and from all the " covenanted mercies of God," the whole 
protestant world, excepting the members of the Episcopal 
church. I know, indeed, that a very difierent impression 
is (jften attempted to be made by the ardent advocates of 
this claim. They have sometimes represented as if they 
were pleading the cause of almost every church on earth. 



xxxiv PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

But nothing can be more delusive, or more entirely at war 
with notorious facts. The truth is, when we come to scru- 
tinize with care the real operation of this claim, it is to ex- 
clude from the visible church of Christ, and from all the 
promises of divine mercy, — the whole Lutheran denomi- 
nation, in every part of the world ; — all the reformed 
churches in Germany^ France^ Holland^ Switzerland, 
and Scotland, without exception ;— perhaps nearly one 
half the population of England itself ; and probably nine- 
teen twentieths of the whole population of the United 
States; including not only all classes oi Presbyter ians, 
but also the Congregational, Methodist, and Baptist 
churches, with many other less numerous portions of pro- 
fessing protestant Christians, in every part of the European 
and American world : — all these when traced to their 
original organization, and their subsequent practice, have 
no other than Presbyterian ordination ; and of course, all 
of them the high-toned prelatists unequivocally denounce ; 
not merely as defective in their views and organization ; 
not merely as labouring under serious error of doctrine or 
order; (such a charge might be consistent with the purest 
charity:) butas absolutely aliens from the church of God 
and from all his covenanted mercies 5 — nay, as was before 
remarked, in a situation worse than the heathen, inasmuch 
as the heathen, having no light , cannot be said to have re- 
sisted it ; but non-Episcopalians, in a Christian land are 
more guilty, enjoying the means of information, and, of 
course, being altogether without excuse. Such then, is the 
real state of this wonderful case. We have a comparative- 
ly small body of professing Christians ; not, certainly, a 
tenth part of the population of protestant Christendom, 
undertaking to exclude from all the warranted hopes of the 

gospel, ALL THE REST OF THEIR FELLOW PROTESTANTS ; 

declaring them out of covenant with Christ ; and, however 
eminent their piety, or fervent their zeal, or abundant their 
services in the cause of the Redeemer, yet, notwithstanding 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxxv 

all, aliens from his family, and having no divine promises 
of which they have a right to lay hold. In short, we have 
here the extraordinary spectacle of a body of professing 
Christians, virtually avowing, that no piety, however 
elevated, no obedience, however pure, without communion 
with prelates, can avail any thing in reference to Christian 
character : — that they are all nothing — literally nothing, 
so far as a gracious relation to God, and hopes in his pre- 
cious promises are concerned, unless connected with a 
point of external order, of which the Bible does not give 
the smallest intimation, and a reliance on which is contrary 
to the whole genius of the gospel ! 

It may be safely affirmed, that there is no parallel to 
this in the whole religious world, excepting in the 
PAPACY. It is true, there are portions of the protestant 
church, both in and out of our own country, which are 
each in the habit of laying much st7^ess on their respective 
peculiarities, representing them as highly important, and 
holding them fast with great, and sometimes, no doubt, 
with excessive tenacity. But they all, with one accord, 
grant that there may be genuine, acceptable piety, out of 
their own pale ; and they all, with equal unanimity, ac- 
knowledge, that wherever sincere faith in Christ, cordial 
repentance, and holiness of life exist, the happy subjects 
of them will be accepted of God, and made for ever happy 
with.J;iim, just as certainly as if they belonged to their own 
denomination : — nay, that this will assuredly be the case, 
even when these truly pious individuals were never con- 
nected with any visible church in their lives. To this 
statement I know only of one exception in the whole 
protestant world, and that is formed by the exclusive pre 
latists of whom 1 am speaking. This comparatively small 
body feel no hesitation in consigning to " uncovenanted 
mercy'' nine-tenths of all protestant Christendom 5 stig- 
matizing them as schismatics, rebels, presumptuous usurp- 
ers of that to which they have no right; aliens from the 



Xxxvi PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenant of 
promise." But can there be the least countenance found in 
the Bible for this uncharitable proscription ? Can it be that 
all the blessed reformers on the continent of Europe, who 
laboured and suffered more for the cause of truth and 
piety than any others in their day ; and all the precious 
ministers and private christians who have flourished from 
that day to the present, in the churches founded by them ; 
ALL deserved to be considered in this light ; — all to be 
regarded as aliens from that Saviour to whom they conse- 
crated all they had, and in whose service they lived and 
died indefatigably labouring ? No, it cannot be. It is a 
sentence as unreasonable as it is dreadful. No such sen- 
tence was ever thought of by the Cranmers, the Hoopers, 
the Bidle^s, the Jewels, and the Grindals of former 
times ; nor can it be now pronounced without an offence, 
as odious as it is criminal, *' against the generation of the 
righteous." 

IX. The doctrine of the exclusive prelatists is, beyond 

all doubt, UNFRIENDLY TO CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 

There is, probably, no principle more familiar to the in- 
telligent Christian who has formed his sentiments from the 
Bible, than that the genuine religion of Jesus Christ has 
ever been, and ever must be, essentially favourable to all 
our choicest rights, as men and as Christians. It represents 
all men as standing, by nature, on a level before God, 
having equal privileges and equal responsibilities. IFt for- 
bids men to put their consciences or their hopes in the 
keeping of others, but imposes upon every man the duty of 
inquiring, judging, believing, and obeying for himself. It 
secures to every one the right of private judgment, and 
represents the exercise of this right as essential to the pro- 
per intercourse between God and the soul. It teaches the 
Christian, that the opinions of his fellow-men are no law 
to him ; but that " to his own Master he standeth or fall- 
eth." In short, it turns away the minds of men from the 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxxvii 

dictation, and unwarranted claims of both civil and eccle- 
siastical oppressors ; and calls upon them to acknowledge 
the sovereignty of truth alone, and to regard the Bible as 
the only statute book of Christ's kingdom, — the. only infal- 
lible rule of faith and practice. 

Now, to all these principles, it is manifest that the spirit 
of the exclusive prelatists is decidedly unfriendly. I am 
far from affirming, indeed, that a man may not cordially 
prefer the Episcopal form of church government, and yet 
receive and love all these principles. Many may, and 
doubtless do, possess this decided preference, v\^ho are yet 
warm friends of both civil and religious liberty. I do not even 
affirm that every high churchman is, in reality, unfriendly 
to religious freedom ; and far less, that he avows to himself 
this unfriendliness. But my position is, that the doctrine 
of the exclusive and thorough-going prelatists, when 
traced to its legitimate, and, indeed, unavoidable conse- 
quences, naturally leads the minds of men, in proportion 
to the degree in which it is received, to all those impres- 
sions and habits which are connected with mental servitude. 
This doctrine introduces human mediators as essential to 
intercourse between Christ and the soul. It attaches indis- 
pensable importance to the agency and authority of "privi- 
leged orders" in the church. It represents a mere man as 
a vicar of Christ, as a keeper of the human conscience, and 
as the only channel of grace. According to this doctrine, 
there is no access to God, but through a certain " order of 
priesthood ;" this order hold in their hands all the means 
of approach to heaven ; and their's is the prerogative to 
impart or withhold the " covenanted mercies" of God. 
When such a doctrine is once admitted, there are no bounds 
to the power which it involves, or the unhallowed domi- 
nion over the conscience to which it naturally leads. It 
is the fundamental principle on which the whole super- 
structure of Papal tyranny has always rested. Hence the 
claim of that corrupt body to be the only authorized inter- 
6 



xxxviii PRELIMINARY LETTER 

preter of the Scripture ; to prohibit its perusal ; to dispense 
pardons and immunities at pleasure ; to add to the rites 
and ceremonies enioined in Scripture; and enforce their 
observance to any extent which she may think proper. In 
a word, to this doctrine, traced out, I will not say, to its 
legitimate, but certainly to its natural consequences, we 
may refer the haughty triumph in past ages, of the eccle- 
siastical over the civil power; — the bulls and interdicts 
which have carried not only terror, but the most formidable 
privations to rulers, and even kingdoms ; and all that array 
of ghostly penalties and coercions, of which the history of 
the world gives so many mournful examples. The truth 
is, the moment we quit the gospel plan of approaching 
God, and obtaining acceptance with him ; the moment we 
assign to the agency of man in intercourse with heaven, 
that paramount and indispensable character which the Bible 
no where warrants ; that moment we encroach on the 
great principles of religious liberty ; we commence an 
invasion of Jehovah's prerogative, of which no one can esti- 
mate the mischief, or see the end. 

But it will, perhaps, be asked, do no other classes of pro- 
fessing Christians, besides exclusive prelatists, contend for 
the importance of the Christian ministry, and represent its 
agency as necessary to the regular course of ecclesiastical 
administration ? Certainly they do. It will be seen in the 
following pages, that Presbyterians, and most other non- 
episcopal denominations maintain decisively that the gospel 
ministry is an ordinance of God ; that its functions ought 
not to be usurped by those who have not been regularly 
called to them ; and that it is the ordinary means of impart- 
ing saving knowledge to the minds of men, and building 
them up in faith and holiness unto salvation. As such, they 
bless God for the ministerial office; they highly value it; 
and consider it as the duty of all men to avail themselves 
of its faithful services, as they may have opportunity. But 
further they do not go. Precious as the Christian ministry 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxxix 

is in their view, and inestimable as are the offices which it 
dispenses, they do not consider either as necessary to sal- 
vation. They credit the divine declaration which pro- 
claims, *' Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt 
*< be saved. He that believeth on the son of God hath 
'* everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, 
*' but is passed from deatk unto life." And, accordingly, 
they are persuaded and teach, that wherever there is one 
who has genuine faith in the Redeemer, and, consequently, 
a vital union of spirit with him, such an individual is as 
completely in a state of acceptance with God, though he 
should never see a church officer in his life, and as sure of 
covenanted mercy, as if he enjoyed the most unquestiona- 
ble ordinances, dispensed by the most regular minister on 
earth. Now those who adopt this great gospel principle, 
and act upon it, cannot be subjected to the reign of spiritual 
domination. They own no master but Christ ; no media- 
tor but Him who *'' came to seek and to save that which was 
lost ;'^ no infallible statute book but the Bible ; no real 
dispenser of grace but that '^ holy Spirit of promise'^ who 
alone can give efficacy to means by whomsoever adminis- 
tered, and who can find his way to the heart without 
means. The Presbyterian, and those who think with 
him, take no view of the ministerial character which ne- 
cessarily gives it any official power over the consciences 
or the hopes of men. yNo certificate or intercession of a 
" priest" is needed to obtain access to the mercy seat. 
There is a wide, I had almost said, an infinite difference 
between all this, and maintaining that the agency of an 
" authorized priest" is necessary to salvation ; and that, as 
he may, at any time, withhold this agency at his pleasure, 
sg an obnoxious individual from whom he chooses to with- 
hold it, may be unavoidably lost, however pure and ele- 
vated his personal piety ; nay, that a nation may incur this 
dreadful penalty in the gross, if unfortunately laid under 
the bar of an ecclesiastical interdict, such as spiritual tyranny 



xl PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

has often imposed. In short, upon the high church 
principle, carried out to its legitimate consequences, " the 
need of the priest as an intercessor is incessant, and depend- 
ence upon him absolute and extreme." 

X. The exclusive claims of prelacy are further refuted 
by the voice of history. That is, the practical influ- 
ence of this system, as recorded in the annals of the church, 
has never justified or sustained the pre-eminence to which 
it lays claim. 

It is always an arduous task, and to delicate and benevo- 
lent minds, a painful one, to compare with each other dif- 
ferent denominations of Christians, and to attempt to 
award the comparative claims of each to purity and spirit- 
uality. It is a task in which sectarian feeling is so apt to 
interpose, and sectarian prejudice to blind the judgment, 
that few minds, animated by a proper spirit, will engage 
in it, unless compelled; yet it is sometimes necessary ; and 
the case before us seems to be one in which it becomes 
unavoidable. 

If a confident and arrogant individual, in setting forth 
his claims to the Christian character, should allow himself 
to say : '^ I only am in covenant with God. I only, of all 
" my fellow professors, maintain a life of real communion 
" with him. All around me are aliens and reprobates. I 
" alone walk in the light, and in the favour of heaven :" 
would not every discerning neighbour be disposed, and 
with the utmost reason, to say to him : '' Where are your 
" testimonals? Bring forth fruits corresponding with this 
" high claim. If you would make it good, we shall ex- 
" pect you to be more devoted, more spiritual, and more 
" exemplary in every branch of Christian obedience, than 
*' any around you. Where, then, is your evidence of the 
" pre-eminent character which you arrogate to yourself ?'' 
Would such a demand be deemed either uncandid or un- 
reasonable ? By no means. It is a dictate of common 
sense. It is the very test which the Saviour himself pre- 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xli 

scribes. " Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." 
And it is very certain that, in all rational society, such a 
claimant, unless he could sustain himself by appealing to 
a temper and conversation in some measure becoming his 
assumption, could not fail of incurring universal contempt. 
It may be truly said, that this is a simple, unexaggerated 
picture of the case before us. It cannot be alleged, indeed, 
that ALL Episcopalians prefer a claim of the character sup- 
posed. Many of them, I hope a large majority, though 
decided in their preference of Prelacy, are as inoffensive in 
their claims, as Presbyterians, or any other denomination 
of Christians. But the assumption of the high-church Pre- 
latists is precisely analogous to that of the individual ima- 
gined ; and, therefore, there can be nothing unjust in mak- 
ing the demand which I have stated. They tell us, that 
their^s is the only true church ; that Episcopalians alone 
are in covenant with God ; that they alone have an author- 
ized ministry, and valid ordinances ; that all others are 
schismatics, rebels and outcasts, having no share in the 
promises of divine mercy. Now, surely, there ought to be 
more piety, more holy living among the peculiar people of 
God, than among rebels and reprobates. Surely, it is not 
unreasonable to demand, that those who are in covenant 
with Christ, and enjoy all the privileges of his holy family, 
should exhibit more of the " spirit of Christ'^ than those 
who are t' none of his.^' Demonstration itself cannot be 
more unquestionable. To represent this as an unfair and 
odious comparison between two or more churches, is 
wholly deceptive. Nothing can be further from the truth. 
For, according to the high-church doctrine, the comparison 
between their body and other denominations, is a compari- 
son between the only true church, and the " world which 
lieth in wickednessJ^ Now, that there should be more 
genuine, consistent, and truly spiritual religion in the for- 
mer than in the latter, every one who believes that the 
church is Christ's family, and that to belong to it is a pri- 



xlii PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

vilege of any real value, will, without hesitation, acknow- 
ledge. 

What, then, in reference to this subject, is the fact ? 
To those who have had an opportunity of surveying and 
comparing different denominations of professing Christians, 
let the appeal be made. Are the members of the Episco- 
pal Church, and especially those who contend for high- 
church principles, distinguished, above all other professors 
of religion, for their piety, zeal and universal holiness of 
practice ? Are they more devout, more prayerful, more 
exemplary in abstaining from every appearance of evil, and 
in maintaining a conversation becoming the Gospel ? When 
we look over Episcopal congregations, do we find them 
every where drawing to their solemn assemblies the most 
truly serious, spiritual and devoted classes of professors ; 
and as manifestly repelling from their communion the 
giddy, the worldly, and the licentious ? It is not denied, 
that there are many noble examples of Christian character 
in that denomination ; but are they more numerous than 
in any other ? Is it, or is it not notorious, that the great 
body of Episcopal churches in our land, instead of excel- 
ling all others in the strictness and purity of their religious 
example, are inferior to many other denominations, in those 
characteristics which are universally allowed to belong 
essentially to the spirit of Christ ? Where is the Lord's 
day most carefully sanctified ? Where does the spirit of 
prayer most manifestly abound ? Where do revivals of 
religion most frequently occur ? Where, in general, is 
there the greatest amount of sympathy for those who are 
'^ sitting in darkness, and in the region and shadow of 
death," and of effort and sacrifice to send them the light of 
life ? Where, in a word, is there the most withdrawment 
from the maxims and habits of a vain world, and the great- 
est activity and zeal in every good word and work.-^ I ask 
again — Is there more of all these among Episcopalians than 
among other denominations ? I do not believe there is an 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xliii 

Episcopalian in the United States, of common discernment 
and common honesty, whose conscience will allow him to 
answer this question in the affirmative. 

Again ; how shall we account for the fact, that those who 
are devoted to worldly pleasure, ambition and splendour; 
those who hate faithful preaching, and strict discipline; 
those who wish to bear the Christian name, but not to have 
the trouble of any anxious thought, inquiry, or self-denial 
on the subject ; those who lean to the utmost laxity of re- 
ligious principle, but yet do not choose openly to take their 
station with Unitarians and Universalists ; those, in a word, 
who content themselves with " the form of godliness with- 
out the power thereof;'^ how, I say, shall we account for 
the fact, that all these are found, in general, resorting to the 
Episcopal, in preference to other churches, wherever there 
is one of that denomination at hand ; and this not because 
they have examined the peculiar claims of that church, and 
found them firmly sustained ; but because they find less to 
disturb them in their course of worldly pleasure ? 

It is painful to present interrogatories of this kind ; but 
our neighbours have compelled us. I am aware, indeed, 
that this whole argument is often indignantly repelled by 
those to whom it applies, as odious and unjust. But I will 
venture to say, that there never was an appeal more legiti- 
mate, reasonable or resistless ; and that the advocate of 
high-church principles can never dispose of it but by so- 
phistry or evasion. If the fact be as I have stated ; and I 
rather suppose it will not be questioned by any well-in- 
formed and candid Episcopalian ; then, of all wonderful 
facts, it is one of the most inexplicable, on the supposition 
that Episcopalians are the only people in covenant with 
God ; the only people who know any thing of holy com- 
munion with the Saviour, or who have any interest in 
" the exceeding great and precious promises" of his word ! 

XI. Another consideration occurs of deep and growing 
interest at the present day. It is, that the claim which I 



xliv PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

oppose is altogether hostile to that harmony of peel- 
ing AND EFFORT FOR THE SPREAD OF THE GOSPEL, WHICH 
CHARACTERIZES THE PRESENT AGE. 

Perhaps there is no feature of the period in which we 
live, more gratifying to the pious mind, and more promis- 
ing with respect to the future, than the fact, that Chris- 
tians of different denominations are more united in spirit 
than formerly ; more disposed to feel as " one body in 
Christ,'^ and to act together in those great plans which 
have, for their object the diffusion of Christian knowledge, 
and the extension of the Redeemer's kingdom. We have 
witnessed the delightful spectacle of ministers of the gospel, 
and private Christians, of various ecclesiastical connections, 
who, until lately, stood aloof from each other, coming to- 
gether with fraternal affection, and cordially co-operating 
in efforts to send the book of God, and the glad tidings of 
salvation throughout the world. We have seen these noble 
coalitions in our own land, in Bible Societies, Missionary 
Societies, Tract Societies, and other associations for pro- 
moting the temporal and eternal welfare of men. And we 
have heard of pious, warm hearted missionaries of the 
Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist denominations, and 
even, in one or two cases. Episcopalians (in whom the 
love of Christ and his cause happily triumphed over the 
love of sect), meeting on foreign shores, taking sweet 
counsel, and communing together as brethren in Christ, 
with heart-felt affection and delight. That such truly 
refreshing scenes are becoming more frequent, every 
Christian ought to rejoice, and to pray that the spirit which 
produces them may fill the world. 

But with this spirit the high church doctrine is utterly and 
irreconcilably at war. Its language, even to the most pious 
and devoted individual breathing, out of its own pale is, "Stand 
by, for I am holier than thou." It refuses to co-operate with 
non-episcopal Christians in anything. Even in circulating the 
Bible, " without note or comment," it declines to take any 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xlv 

part, unless its own sectarian forms can accompany every 
copy of the word of life. Nay, even amidst the darkness 
and misery of perishing millions, it can deliberately say, 
" Let nothing be done if it cannot be comprehended in our 
" own enclosure. Let every plan of mercy be suspended, 
" every effort of Christian benevolence abandoned, rather 
" than run the risk of departing from the 'uninterrupted 
" succession ;' rather than suffer gospel ordinances to be 
** distributed otherwise than in conformity with rigid 
" ' canonical regularity.' " I do not mean that this is the 
language often uttered by the lips of high churchmen ; but 
that it is the unavoidable and unequivocal language of their 
principles ; and that these principles lead to corresponding 
practical results. Indeed, there is reason to fear that, in 
some cases even low churchmen have caught something of 
the infection, and manifested a spirit closely allied with 
that of which I speak. One professedly of this class, has 
been known to offer his services to a respectable missionary 
association for a foreign mission ; but at the same time 
distinctly to announce, that if he should be sent forth in 
company with other missionaries, not Episcopally ordained, 
he could not possibly, when he should arrive on the foreign 
field, receive the sacramental symbols from their hands, 
but only when dispensed by himself! The missionary 
association in question, of course, thought it wise to decline 
annexing such an individual to a body, all the other mem- 
bers of which were of one heart, and one soul. This oc- 
currence would not have been, thought worthy of notice, 
did it not serve to illustrate the fact, that even some low 
churchmen are beginning, contrary to all their former pro- 
testations, to disclose some leaning to the high church 
doctrine, or, at any rate, to act upon it. In truth, when 
they are once, in any degree, entangled in the toils of the 
prelatical claim, it is easy to see that they can scarcely fail 
of finding themselves involved in embarrassments of the 
most serious kind. 
7 



xlvi PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

Is it not evident, then, my Christian brethren, that the 
high and exclusive claim under consideration, is peculiarly 
unfriendly to the spirit of the .present day ? — a day in 
vv^hich the union of effort to spread the knowledge of the 
Gospel is manifestly increasing; when the spirit of our 
common Christianity is beginning, if I am not deceived, to 
be better understood, more deeply felt, and more divested 
of human additions ; — when Christians are beginning to 
distinguish more accurately than formerly between the 
essentials and the forms of religion, and to see that many 
things, which once kept them apart, ought no longer to do 
so. In such a day as this, the spirit of high-church, which 
was always antichristian, is peculiarly unseasonable and 
odious; unfriendly to the universal spread of the Gospel; 
utterly inconsistent with harmonious effort in this great 
cause ; fitted to create difficulty and obstacle at every step ; 
calculated to degrade our holy religion in the eyes of the 
heathen ; or to tempt the heathen to exchange one super- 
stition for another, a little more decent and respectable, 
but, when made the ground of hope, quite as delusive and 
fatal as their most miserable idolatries. 

Such, my respected Christian brethren, are some of my 
objections to the high and exclusive claim which it is the 
object of the following pages to disprove. It is utterly 
destitute of all warrant from Scripture. It is entirely 
unsupported by an appeal to the earliest uninspired records 
of the Christian church. It is, undoubtedly, an innovation 
on the primitive model of ecclesiastical order. The original 
reformers in England did not receive it. In the best and 
purest period of the reformed church in that country, it 
was unknown ; and did not obtain a footing until orthodoxy 
and piety had both grievously declined. It is a claim pre- 
sumptuous, unreasonable, uncharitable ; generally found in 
connection with other errors of very unhappy tendency ; 
unfriendly to civil and religious liberty ; unsupported by 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xlvii 

any benign and practical inflt«nce ; and unfavourable to 
affectionate union of effort in evangelizing the world. That 
which is manifestly liables^to all these objections, cannot be 
of God, and ought not be encouraged by those who desire 
the real prosperity of the Redeemer's kingdom. 

To every Presbyterian, then, in the United States, I 
would say. Be not deceived with the idea that the doctrine 
contended for by high churchmen is a mere innocent specu- 
lation ; erroneous, indeed, but likely to do little harm, 
even if extensively embraced. If the foregoing repre- 
sentation be correct, this is an entire mistake. It is a 
doctrine founded in important error, and replete with prac- 
tical mischief. If, therefore, my beloved brethren, you 
wish well to the cause of Christ in our land ; if you desire 
to see a spirit of harmony and love growing among Chris- 
tians ; if your hearts warm with the hope of seeing pure 
and scriptural revivals of religion pervading every part of 
our country ; if you would guard against every thing in- 
imical to Christian liberty, and cherish every thing friendly 
to the diffusion of the genuine spirit of the gospel ; — then 
beware of the delusion of these men. I charge them with 
no sinister intention ; but their doctrine and claim, when 
traced to their legitimate consequences, are undoubtedly 
calculated to bring back the reign of Popery, and re-esta- 
blish that thraldom of ecclesiastical domination, of which 
the world has already seen so many mournful examples. 
It is adapted — whether they design it or not — to arrest 
the progress of all that is simple and scriptural in principle, 
of all that is holy in practice, and of all that is diffusive, 
unshackled, fraternal, and affectionate in Christian inter- 
course and Christian effort. 

I am aware that my character among those who know 
me, is that of a firm, and even zealous Presbyterian. This 
character I am willing to own. I have no doubt that the 
substance of Presbyterianism is to be found in the Bible ; 
that it continued to prevail in the primitive church, two 



xlviii PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

full centuries after the dajusiof the apostles ; and that it is 
unspeakably better adapted than any form of church go- 
vernment, to bind the body of*Christ together in truth, 
love, holy living, and universal edification. Yet, I am free 
to say, that, much as I love this form of ecclesiastical or- 
der, I consider it as a trifle when brought into competition 
with the great interests of vital piety, and the salvation of 
the souls of men. I have no more doubt that a church 
may exist and flourish under a different form, than I have 
that a man may be pious, without being a Calvinist in his 
doctrinal belief. When I meet with an Episcopal brother, 
who, though he decisively prefers prelacy, and thinks he 
can find it in primitive antiquity ; yet forbears to put his 
bishop in the place of the Saviour, and preaches the truth 
in love — I regard him with cordial affection, and can un- 
feignedly wish well, not only to his person, but also to his 
ministry. Nay, I consider the success of any religious 
party ; the triumph of any external denomination, as un- 
worthy of regard, when compared with the great object of 
" turning nien from darkness to light, and from the power 
" of Satan to the kingdom of God's] dear Son. ^' If I am 
not utterly deceived, I love a pious, warm hearted, exem- 
plary Episcopalian, more, far more than a cold, formal 
worldly Presbyterian. Nor have I the smallest desire 
that Episcopalians should surrender their decided prefer- 
ence for prelacy, or their firm belief in its apostolic origin, 
for the sake of pleasing other denominations. This would 
be an unreasonable demand. All I lament, is, that they lay 
a degree of stress on an outward form which the Bible 
knows nothing of; and that they adopt a principle, without 
the slightest warrant, which necessarily leads to a system 
of proscription, denunciation, and war toward all other 
Protestant churches. I abhor the thought of making the 
form of ecclesiastical polity a fundamental of Christianity. 
You may be zealous Presbyterians, and yet not real 
Christians. And just in proportion to the degree in which 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. xlix 

you possess the genuine spirit of Christ, will you disap- 
prove of the error, in whomsoever it is found, of placing 
rites and forms among the«essentials of religion. 

Allow me to say, my respected friends, that this is the 
Presbyterianism which I would earnestly recommend to 
you. Not that inordinate attachment to a name and a form 
which is the offspring of narrow views, sectarian feelings, 
and blind prejudice; but that candid, sober preference, 
which places ecclesiastical order where it ought to be 
placed, as a secondary matter ; — and which recognizes the 
fact, that men may entertain different views on this subject, 
and yet be equally pious believers, anfl, of course, equally 
safe in their hopes of heaven. This, I have reason to be- 
lieve, is the prevailing sentiment, both among ministers and 
people, of the body to which we are so happy as to belong. 
May it ever be one of our laudable distinctions ! Let no- 
thing tempt you to depart from this sentiment. Never per- 
mit even the sectarian violence of other denominations to 
drive you into an imitation of their unhallowed spirit. Let 
them denounce your ministry, and sneer at your ordinances 
and your hopes. Be it your resolution to return good 
for evil ; and to love and honour them as brethren in Christ, 
as far as they appear to bear his image, although they may 
reject and vilify you. Remember that their acknowledging 
you, or refusing to do it, is nothing, if Christ acknowledge 
you. When the Judaizing teachers, in the days oi Paul, 
urged an adherence to the ceremonial observances of the 
old economy, as necessary to salvation ; the apostle, who 
had been better taught, instead of manifesting any anxiety 
for the safety of himself, and his fellow disciples, who re- 
jected the Jewish doctrine and who were thus denounced, 
seemed chiefly concerned for the welfare of those who were 
carried away by this delusion, and to guard others against 
its influence. In like manner, so far from being doubtful 
whether you may be saved out of the Episcopal church, my 
deep conviction is, that the danger is all the other way ; — 



1 PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

that there is real danger — not in being found in an 
Episcopal church, as such ; for there I have no doubt there 
may be as ardent piety, and as precious, well founded hopes 
as in the Presbyterian or any other : but real danger in 
being found in an ecclesiastical inclosure in which the high 
church doctrine, with all its usual spirit and accompanying 
errors, form the prevalent system. But even toward the 
advocates of these, guard against a spirit of acrimony or 
retaliation. Compassionate their error. Pray without 
ceasing for their illumination. And endeavour to win them 
by the patient exercise of a kind, respectful, and fraternal 
spirit. However the manifestation of such a spirit may be 
received by them, it will promote your own comfort and 
benefit, both with God and man. No good effort was ever 
lost; no holy temper was ever exercised in vain. 

Let none say, that the design of these remarks is to cast 
odium on a large, and, certainly, very respectable denomina- 
tion of Christians. I again declare, that nothing is further 
from my design. Against Episcopalians, as a^ody, I have 
not the smallest disposition to eay a word. With respect to 
them, as well as various other denominations around me, 
whom I can respect and love while I difier from them: 
I would say — may God bless and prosper them in all their 
honest endeavours to bring men to the saving knowledge, 
love, and obedience of the truth! But episcopacy, as a form 
of ecclesiastical government, and the decided preference 
and use of it, as marking a sect of Christians, Tnay be dis- 
tinguished, and must be distinguished from the doctrine 
and spirit of high-churchmen. They were distinguished 
by Cranmer, Grindal, Mhot, Hall, and Usher, in for- 
mer days of the church of England ; and by Tillotson, 
TVake, Seeker, Newton, Scott, and others, in later times. 
All these were Episcopalians, and most of them eminent 
prelates ; none of them, however, were high-churchmen, 
but renounced and abhorred their doctrine, and the claim 
resulting from it, as much as we do. And one of the most 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. li 

learned of them all, Archbishop Wake, expressly stigma- 
tizes the advocates of this doctrine as ** madmen.^^ With 
such Episcopalians, every contemporary Presbyterian lived 
in peace; and with such men, we may and do live in 
peace now. There are points of difference between 
us ; but nothing to interfere with Christian love and good 
neighbourhood. But the doctrine which is sometimes 
found among Episcopalians ; which attained very little 
currency or popularity in the church of England, until the 
time of Archbishop Laud, of inglorious memory; which, 
from that time to this, we have reason to be thankful, has 
been the doctrine of only a minority of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church ; and which it is really an imposition 
on public credulity to identify with that church, as a Chris- 
tian denomination ; — this doctrine, which but faintly dis- 
guises its Popish character, is odious, and ought to be so 
considered ; and I do not deny that it is my intention to 
hold it up to public odium whenever I have occasion to 
speak of it. It is a system of belief, and of action, which 
not only declares war against all other denominations ; 
but its very element is war, and so far as the views and 
wishes of those who wage it go, nothing less than a war of 
extermination. Is it inconsistent with either Christian can- 
dour or charity to represent such a system as worthy of 
being held up to public odium ? 

It militates nothing against this representation to allege, 
that the men who advocate this exclusive system are honest 
in their convictions, and benevolent in their intentions. 
This is not denied or doubted. But so, unquestionably, is 
the serious Romanist, when he proclaims eternal perdition 
as inevitable to all who are not in communion with the 
bishop of Rome ; and denounces the same penalty against 
all who reject the penances and absolutions dispensed by 
his " priesthood." But neither the sincerity of his belief 
in what he tells us, nor the kindness of his intentions in 
warning us of a danger which he unfeignedly considers as 



Hi PRELIMINARY LETTER. 

real, can alter the odious character of the dogmas which he 
urges; or diminish the obligation resting upon every one 
who loves the happiness or the liberty of his country, to 
set himself against them with fixed and firm opposition. 

With the intentions of high-churchmen we have noth- 
ing to do ; but the spirit and tendency of their claims we 
are bound, as members of the Church of Christ, to under- 
stand, and to place in a proper light before ourselves and 
others. Fidelity to our Master in heaven demands this of 
us. The best interests of our children, who may be mis- 
led by their plausible confidence, demand it of us. The 
duty which we owe to our truly primitive and apostolic 
Church requires it at our hands. Nay, we are called to this 
duty by the obligations which, as patriots, we owe to the 
rights and privileges of our beloved country. Never was 
there a country or an age, in which the claim in question 
was less in accordance, than that in w^hich our lot is cast. 
The happy civil constitutions under which we live, re- 
garding with equal eye all denominations, call upon our 
several Churches, in the most emphatic language, to live in 
peace with one another. The great movements in the re- 
ligious world which mark the beginning of the nineteenth 
century, proclaim as loudly and solemnly as the events of 
any period ever did, that all the real friends of Christ 
ought to be united against the common enemy, and in sup- 
port of their common Christianity. Is this a country, and 
is this a day in which the very thought can be admitted, 
that professing Christians should spend their time in 
*' doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof 
come envy, raiUngs, evil surmisings, and corrupt disput- 
ings ?" Is this a time for '^ Judah to vex Ephraini, and 
Ephraim to vex Judah,^^ when there is so much common 
ground on which both may peacefully stand ; and when the 
importunate cries of a dying and supplicating world — cries 
which ought to move the hearts and summon the energies 
of all Christians, to the great work of sending the bread 



PRELIMINARY LETTER. Hii 

and the water of life to famishing millions ? Whatever 
others may do, my Christian friends, be it far from tou to 
indulge a spirit unworthy of the name you bear. Be it 
your constant care to " study the things which make for 
peace, and the things wherewith one may edify another." 
And then, whatever may become of this controversy, as a 
matter of logical discussion, you will be certain of the best 
of all victories, — a victory over unhallowed tempers and 
practices ; a victory over strife and division ; and oyer 
every thing that interferes with the union and edification 
of the body of Christ. 

I am, my Christian Brethren, 

Your affectionate servant in the Gospel, 

SAMUEL MILLER. 

Princeton, Sept. 16 th, 1830. 



LETTERS 



covcEBiriNa 



THE CONSTITUTION AND ORDER 



OF 



^siis ©iMiEa^^iiAi^ umiii^iBir^ 



BY SAMUEL MILLER, D. D. 



PART I. 



L.ETTERS 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 



LETTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 



CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

Religion is the common business of all men. Its duties 
cannot be performed by delegation. Every man is required to 
examine, to believe, and to obey the gospel for himself, and for 
himself to receive the promised reward. We may commit other 
concerns to the wisdom and fidelity of our fellow-men : but the care 
of his own soul belongs to each individual ; and if he neglect it, no 
solicitude, no exertions on the part of others, can possibly avail 
him. 

But although religion be a concern which equally belongs to 
every man, yet it has pleased the all- wise Head of the Church to 
appoint an order of men more particularly to minister in holy things: 
not to supersede the attention of other individuals to this object, 
but to stimulate, to guide, and in various ways to assist them in 
this attention. For when this divine Instructer ascended up on 
high, he gave some to he prophets, and some apostles, and some 
evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of 
the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the 
body of Christ. 

Prophets and apostles are no longer continued in the Church ; 
because the immediate inspiration, and the miraculous powers 
with which they were endowed, are no longer necessary in 
dispensing the gospel. But though the age of inspired men, and 
of miracles be past, the Redeemer still continues the ministry of 
reconciliation. He still continues to raise up and send forth a 
A 



2 LETTER I. 

succession of ambassadors, to declare his will, and to offer pardon 
and life to a fallen race. 

The office sustained by ministers of the gospel is designated 
in scripture by a variety of names. They are sometimes called 
Bishops, because they are overseers of the flock committed to their 
charge. They are frequently styled Presbyters, or Elders, which 
are words of the same import, because, if not really advanced 
in age, they are bound to maintain the dignity and gravity of 
ecclesiastical rulers. They are denominated Pastors, because it 
is their duty to feed the flock of God. They are called Doctors 
and Teachers, because they are required to instruct those commit- 
ted to their care, in the doctrines and duties of religion. They 
are said to be Ambassadors, importing that their duty is to declare 
the will of their Sovereign, and to negotiate a peace between the 
offended Majesty of heaven and guilty men. They are represented 
as Ministers or Servants, because in all that they lawfully say and 
do, they act under the authority of a Master, whose declared will 
is their guide. They are Stewards of the mysteries of God, having 
the spiritual provisions of his house committed to them to be 
dispensed. They are Watchmen, being placed to guard the 
welfare of Zion, to give notice to men of their danger, and to 
exercise a vigilant care over all the interests of the Redeemer's 
kingdom. They are Shepherds, inasmuch as they are appointed 
to feed, protect, guide, and govern the flock, under the direction 
of the Chief Shepherd. And, finally, according to the language 
of scripture, they are Workmen and Labourers, because they 
have a particular task assigned them; and because a faithful 
discharge of their duties requires diligence, exertion, and persevering 
labour. 

Every thing relating to the Christian Church is important, 
and worthy of our serious attention. But it too often happens, 
that, on account of particular states of society, or other peculiar 
circumstances, some portions of the system of revealed truth are 
less regarded and examined than their relative importance demands. 
Accordingly, it has appeared to me, for several years past, that 
the order of Christ and his apostles respecting the Christian 
Ministry, is a subject which has received less of your attention, 
and is, by many of you, less understood than it ought to be by 
those who profess to be members of that holy community, which 



INTRODUCTORY. 3 

ministers are appointed to serve and to govern. If all the interests 
of the Church are precious in the view of every enlightened 
Christian, it is evident that the mode of organization cannot be a 
trivial concern ; and if the Saviour, or those who were immediately 
taught by his Spirit, have laid down any rules, or given us any 
information on this subject, it behoves us carefully to study what 
they have delivered, and to make it our constant guide. Under 
these impressions, I have determined to request your candid 
attention to some remarks on the doctrine held by our Church 
respecting the Christian Ministry, and especially as to the points 
in which we differ, on this subject, from our Episcopal brethren. 

You will do me the justice to acknowledge, that, in the course 
of my ministry among you, I have never manifested a spirit of 
bigotry or disputation. Indeed, some of you, I know, have 
considered me as too reluctant to engage in the public discussion 
of various subjects disputed between our Church and those of 
other religious denominations. My great attachment to peace 
among Christians, and ray earnest desire to promote that charity 
without which faith and hope are vain, have always rendered me 
unwilling to embark in controversy. My readers, therefore, will 
do me great injustice if they suppose that any thing in the following 
sheets is dictated by a spirit of anim.osity or bitterness towards any 
portion of the religious community, or is intended to cherish such 
a spirit in others. My object is, not to intrude into another 
society for the purpose of making proselytes ; not to disturb the 
convictions, or irritate the feelings of any who are fixed in a 
different creed from mine ; but to inform and satisfy you, who are 
not only of my own denomination, but more particularly committed 
to my charge, that you have not followed cunningly devised fables; 
that you are connected with a Church as nearly conformed to 
apostolic and primitive order as any on earth ; and that Christian 
ordinances come to you in a channel at least as pure and legitimate, 
and in a manner at least as agreeable to the simplicity that is in 
Christ, as to those who make the most extravagant and exclusive 
claims. 

In the discussion of all controverted subjects it is of the utmost 
importance to ascertain, at the commencement, the precise state 
of the question. Much has been said and written on the main 
subject of dispute between the Presbyterian and Episcopal 



4 LETTER I. 

Churches, without understanding, or, if they were understood^ 
without distinguishing, the points in which these denominations 
agree, and in which they diflfer. To guard against mistakes here, 
it will be proper to state explicitly, in what respects their opinions 
are at variance. 

We agree with our Episcopal brethren in believing, that Christ 
hath appointed Officers in his Church to preach the word, to 
administer sacraments, to dispense discipline, and to commit these 
powers to other faithful men. We believe, as fully as they, that 
there are different classes and denominations of officers in the 
Church of Christ ; and that, among these, there is, and ought to 
be, a clue subordination. We concur with them in maintaining, 
that none are regularly invested with the ministerial character, or 
can with propriety be recognized in this character, but those who 
have been set apart to the office by persons lawfully clothed with 
the power of ordaining. We unite with such of them as hold the 
opinion, that Christians, in all ages, are bound to make the apos- 
tolic order of the church, with respect to the ministry, as well as 
other points, the model, as far as possible, of all their ecclesiastical 
arrangements. And, finally, we contend, equally with them, that 
both the name and the ojice of Bishop were found in the primi- 
tive Church, and ought to be retained to the end of time. Many 
Episcopalians of narrow views, and of slender information, seem 
to take it for granted that we discard Bishops in every sense of 
the word; and therefore, when they find this term in scripture, or 
in early uninspired writers, they exult, as if the word established 
their claim. But nothing can be more unfounded than this triumph. 
We all acknowledge that there were Bishops in the days of the 
apostles, and that there must be Bishops in every regularly con- 
stituted Church in every age.* 

But we differ from that denomination of Christians in our views 

* In the Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church, the pastors 
of Churches are expressly styled Bishops,- and this title is recommended 
to be retained, as both scriptural and appropriate. The same may be 
proved with respect to most, if not all the Ileformed Churches. I am 
sensible that this title, as applied to ordinary pastors, has been the sub- 
ject of much ridicule among the friends of prelacy; a ridicule, however, 
which recoils with double force upon those who thus betray a want of 
acquaintance with the primitive application of the word. 



INTRODUCTORY. 5 

of the character and 'powers of Church officers. They suppose 
that there are three orders in the Christian ministry, viz. Bishops, 
Presbyters, and Deacons : The first possessing the highest eccle- 
siastical power ; the second invested with authority to preach and 
administer both sacraments; and the third empowered only to 
preach and baptize. We suppose, on the other hand, that there 
is, properly speaking, but one order of gospel ministers; that 
there are, indeed, two other classes of Church officers, viz. ruling 
Elders, and Deacons ; but that neither of these are authorized to 
labour in the word and doctrine, or to administer either of the 
Christian sacraments. We suppose that there is a plain distinc* 
tion made in scripture between Elders who only rule, and Elders 
who, to the power of ruling, join also that oi teaching and admin- 
istering sealing ordinances. And we believe, that the friends of 
modern Episcopacy, in considering Deacons as an order of Clergy, 
and in empowering them to preach and baptize, are chargeable 
with a departure from the apostolic pattern. 

But we differ from our Episcopal brethren, principally, with 
respect to the character dindi poioers of the scriptural Bishop. They 
contend that Bishops are an order of ministers superior to Pres- 
byters, having a different ordination, different powers, and a 
different sphere of duty. That while Presbyters have a right, by 
virtue of their office, to preach the word, and administer sacra- 
ments, to Bishops exclusively belong the powers of ordination, 
confirmation, and government. On the other hand, we maintain, 
that there is but one order of ministers of the gospel in the 
Christian Church ; that every regular pastor of a congregation is 
a scriptural Bishop; or, in other words, that every Presbyter, who 
has been set apart, by the laying on of the hands of the Pres- 
bytery, and who has the pastoral charge of a particular Church, 
is, to all intents and purposes, in the sense of scripture, and 
of the primitive Church, a Bishop; having a right, in company 
with others, his equals, to ordain, and to perform every service 
pertaining to the Episcopal office. We can discover no warrant, 
either from the word of God, or from the early history of the 
Church, for what is called the Diocesan Episcopacy, or the pre- 
eminence and authority of one man, under the title of Bishop, or 
any other title, over a number of Presbyters and Churches : On 
the contrary, we are persuaded and affirm, that Christ and his 



6 LETTER I. 

Apostles expressly discountenanced such claims of pre-eminence 5 
and that all those forms of ecclesiastical government which are 
built upon these claims, are corruptions of apostolic simplicity, and 
deviations from the primitive order of the Church. 

This being the case, you will readily perceive the necessity of 
clearly marking and keeping in view a distinction between the 
primitive and the modern sense of the word Bishop. Accordingly, 
in the perusal of the following sheets, you are earnestly requested to 
recollect, at every step, that by a scriptural or primitive Bishop f 
is always meant a Presbyter, Minister, Pastor, or whatever else he 
may be called, who has the pastoral care of a particular congre- 
gation ; and that by scriptural or primitive Episcopacy/, is meant 
that government of the Church, by such Bishops, which existed in 
pure apostolic times, and for near two hundred years afterwards. 
And, on the other hand, that, by modern Bishops, and modern 
Episcopacy, is meant that government of the Church by prelates, 
which took its rise from ecclesiastical ambition, long after the days 
of the apostles, and which, with other innovations on primitive 
order, has since claimed to rest on the authority of Christ. 

It ought further to be understood, that among those who espouse 
the Episcopal side in this controversy, there are three classes. 

li\iQ first consists of those who believe that neither Christ nor 
his Apostles laid down any particular form of ecclesiastical govern- 
ment, to which the Church is bound to adhere in all ages. That 
every Church is free, consistently with the divine will, to frame her 
constitution agreeably to her own views, to the state of society, 
and to the exigencies of particular times. These prefer the 
Episcopal government, and some of them believe that it was the 
primitive form ; but they consider it as resting on the ground of 
human expediency alone, and not of divine appointment. This is 
well known to have been the opinion of Archbishops Cranmer, 
Grindal, and Whitgift ; of Bishop Leighton, of Bishop Jewel, 
of Dr. Whitaker, of Bishop Reynolds, of Archbishop Tillotson, 
of Bishop Burnet, of Bishop Croft, of Dr. Stilling fieet, and of a 
long list of the most learned and pious divines of the Church of 
England, from the reformation down to the present day. 

Another class of Episcopalians go further. They suppose that 
the government of the Church by Bishops, as a superior order to 
Presbyters, was sanctioned by apostolic example, and that it is the 



INTRODUCTORY. 7 

duty of all Churches to imitate this example. But while they 
consider episcopacy as necessary to the perfection of the Church, 
they grant that it is by no means necessary to her existence ; and 
accordingly, without hesitation, acknowledge as true Churches of 
Christ, many in which the Episcopal doctrine is rejected, and 
Presbyterian principles made the basis of ecclesiastical government. 
The advocates of this opinion, also, have been numerous and 
respectable, both among the clerical and lay members of the 
Episcopal Churches in England, and the United States. In this 
list appear the venerable names of Bishop Hall, Bishop Downham, 
Bishop Bancroft, Bishop Andrews, Archbishop Usher, Bishop 
Forbes, the learned Chillingioorth, Archbishop Wake, Bishop 
Hoadly, and many more, whose declarations on the subject will 
be more particularly detailed in another place. 

A third class go much beyond either of the former. While they 
grant that God has left men at liberty to modify every other kind 
of government according to circumstances, they contend that one 
form of government for the Church is unalterably fixed by divine 
appointment 5 that this form is Episcopal ; that it is absolutely 
essential to the existence of the Church ; that, of course, wherever 
it is wanting, there is no church, no regular ministry, no valid 
ordinances 5 and that all who are united with religious societies, 
not conforming to this order, are " aliens from Christ," " out of 
the appointed road to heaven," and have no hope but in the 
" uncovenanted mercies of God." 

It is confidently believed that the two former classes taken 
together, embrace at least nineteen parts out of twenty of all the 
Episcopalians in Great Britain and the United States 5 while, so 
far as can be learned from the most respectable writings, and 
other authentic sources of information, it is only the small remaining 
proportion who hold the extravagant opinions assigned to the third 
and last of these classes. 

Against these exorbitant claims there is, prior to all inquiry into 
their evidence, a strong general presumption, for the following 
reasons : 

First — It is placing a point of external order on a par with the 
essence of religion. I readily grant, that every observance which 
the great Head of the Church enjoins by express precept, is indis- 
pensably binding. But it is certainly contrary to the genius of the 



8 LETTER I. 

Gospel dispensation, which is pre-eminently distinguished from the 
Mosaic economy by its simplicity and spirituality, to place forms 
of outward order among those things which are essential to the 
very existence of the Church. We know from scripture, that the 
visible form of the Church has been repeatedly altered, without 
affecting her essence. 

Secondly — Against this doctrine there is another ground of 
presumption ; because it represents the rite of ordination as of 
superior importance to the whole system of divine truth and 
ordinances, which it is the duty of Christian ministers to dispense. 
According to this doctrine, Preshyttrs are fully authorized to 
preach that Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to 
every one that helieveth ; to admit members into the Church by 
baptism ; to administer the Lord's supper 5 and, in short, to engage 
in all those ministrations which are necessary to edify the body 
of Christ : but to the regular introduction of a minister into office, 
by the imposition of hands, they are not competent. Is not this, 
in other words, maintaining, that the Gospel is inferior to its 
ministers ; that the sacraments are less solemn and elevated 
ordinances than a rite, which all Protestants allow not to be a 
sacrament ; that the dispensation of God's truth is a less dignified 
function, than selecting and setting apart a servant of the truth ; 
that the means are more important than the end ? If so, then every 
man of sound mind will pronounce, that, against such a doctrine, 
there is, antecedent to all inquiry, a reasonable and strong 
presumption. 

Thirdly — If it be admitted, that there are no true ministers but 
those who are episcopally ordained ; and that none are in commu- 
nion with Christ, excepting those who receive the ordinances of 
his Church from the hands of ministers thus ordained ; then 
Christian character, and all the marks by which we are to judge 
of it, will be placed on new ground; ground of which the scrip- 
tures say nothing ; and which it is impossible for one Christian in 
a thousand to investigate. When the word of God describes a real 
Christian, it is in such language as this — He is bo7m of the Spirit ; 
he is a new creature; old things are passed away ; behold, all 
things are become new. He believes in Christ and repents of all 
sin. He crucifies the fiesh with the affections and lusts : he c/e- 
lights in the law of the Lord after the inward man : — he strives 



INTRODUCTORY. 9 

against sin : he is meek, humble, full of mercy and good fruits : 
he loves his brethren whom he hath seen, as well as God whom he 
hath not seen: he is zealous of good works: and makes it his 
constant study to imbibe the Spirit, and to imitate the example of 
the Redeemer. These are the evidences of Christian character 
which fill the New Testament, and which meet us wherever the 
subject is discussed. According to this representation, the only 
essential prerequisite to holding communion with Christ, is being 
united to him by a living faith; that faith which purifies the heart, 
and is productive of good works. But if the extravagant doctrine 
which we oppose be admitted; then no man^ however abundantly 
he may possess all these characteristics, can be in communion with 
Christ, unless he is also in communion with the Episcopal Church. 
That is, his claim to the Christian character cannot be established 
by exhibiting a holy temper and life ; but depends on his being in 
the line of a certain ecclesiastical descent. In other words, the 
inquiry whether he is in covenant with Christ, is not to be an- 
swered by evidences of personal sanctification ; but resolves itself 
into a question of clerical genealogy, which iQw Christians in the 
world are capable of examining, and which no mortal can certainly 
establish. There is no possibility of avoiding this conclusion on 
the principle assumed. And I appeal to you, my brethren, whether 
a principle which involves such consequences, has not strong pre- 
sumption against it. 

Fourthly — If the doctrine in question be admitted, then we vir- 
tually pronounce nine-tenths of the whole Protestant world to be 
in a state of excommunication from Christ. I know it has been 
often said, by zealous writers on this subject, that the great body 
of the Protestant Churches are Episcopal; and that those who 
adopt the Presbyterian government make but a very small portion 
of the whole number. But I need not tell those who are acquainted 
with the history of the Church since the reformation, and with the 
present state of the Christian world, that this representation is 
wholly incorrect- The very reverse is true ; as I shall more fully 
show in a subsequent letter. Are we then prepared to adopt a 
principle which cuts off so large a portion of the Protestant world 
from the visible Church, and represents it as in a state in some 
respects worse than that of the heathen ? It is to be presumed that 
every considerate man will require the most pointed evidence of 
B 



10 LETTER I. 

divine warrant, before he admits a principle so tremendous in its 
consequences. 

It is not asserted that these considerations prove the extravagant 
episcopal doctrine from which they flow to be false. A doctrine 
may be unpalatable, and yet true. Whatever is plainly revealed 
in scripture, we are to receive without any regard to consequences. 
But when a principle is repugnant to reason, contradicts the analo- 
gy of faith, and involves consequences deeply wounding to the 
bosom of charity, we may safely pronounce that there is a pre- 
sumption against it, antecedent to all inquiry; and that before we 
embrace such a principle, the evidence of its divine warrant ought 
to be more than commonly clear and decisive. 

With the great body of Episcopalians in this country, and 
elsewhere, it is extremely easy to live on the most friendly terms. 
Though attached to the peculiarities of their own denomination, 
they extend the language and the spirit of charity to other Churches. 
We, of course, think them in error, because we are persuaded 
that Episcopacy, in the form for which they contend, is an inno- 
vation. Yet as long as they keep within the bounds of that liberal 
preference and zeal for their own forms, both of government and 
worship, which every man ought to cherish for the Church with 
which he connects himself, we must approve of their sincerity, 
while we cannot unite with them in opinion. But with those (and 
and we have reason to be thankful that the number is very small) 
who make exclusive claims, of a nature nearly allied to the doc- 
trine of Popish infallibility; who declare that their own Church 
and the Roman Catholic, are the only Churches of Christ among 
us ; who embrace every opportunity of denouncing all other minis- 
ters, as presumptuous intruders into the sacred office, their minis- 
trations a nullity, and those who attend on them as aliens from the 
covenant of grace ; with these it is not so easy to live in that 
harmonious and affectionate intercourse which is highly desirable 
among Christians of different denominations. But even toward 
thesCy it is your duty to cultivate a spirit of forbearance and 
charity; and while you are careful to arm yourselves with the 
means of defence against their attacks, remember that you are 
bound to make allowance for their prejudices, to forgive their 
uncharitableness, and to pity their delusion. Among depraved 
and erring mortals, differences of opinion will ever exist. The 



INTRODUCTORY. 1 1 

most pious and exemplary Christians cannot always agree, espe- 
cially on subjects of minor importance connected with religion. 
Make it your study, then, to be unanimous in affection towards 
Christians of every name, however you may be compelled to 
differ from many of them in opinion. Never forget, however 
others may act as if they forgot, that all real believers are one 
body in Christ, and every one members one of another. It is my 
earnest wish that this sentiment may be deeply impressed on my 
own heart while I write, and on yours while you read. For 
though, with respect to the subject on which I am about to address 
you, I am fully persuaded in my own mind; and though I confi- 
dently believe that our views of the Christian ministry are not 
only jusl, but also highly important in their practical influence; 
yet I have no doubt that many who differ on subjects of this 
nature, are followers of the same master, are building on the same 
foundation, and will finally dwell together in that world of perfect 
love, where men shall come from the east, and from the west, 
and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down with 
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of our Father, 
You will, perhaps, ask me, whether those who sincerely hold the 
high-toned Episcopal notions which have been mentioned, can be 
reasonably blamed for endeavouring to propagate them ? Nay, 
whether it is not as much their duty as their right to do so, while 
they entertain these convictions ? I answer, such persons are to be 
viewed in the same light with those who conscientiously believe 
(and no doubt there are many such) that transuhstantiation is a 
doctrine of scripture; that the Pope is infallible ; that images are 
a great help to devotion ; and that there is no salvation out of the 
pale of the Church of Rome. Persons who hol5 these opinions are 
not to be blamed for wishing to disseminate doctrines which they 
regard as true and important ; but they are to be both blamed and 
pitied for believing them, when the means of gaining more correct 
views are within their reach; for setting up a standard of duty and of 
Christian character which the Saviour never knew ; and teaching 
for doctrines the commandments of men, Paul, when he was 
persecuting the Church of Christ and wasting it, verily thought 
within himself that he was doing God service; yet we have the 
best authority for saying that this miserable mistake did not render 
him blameless in the sight of heaven. 



12 LETTER I. 

The truth is, every sect of Christians must be considered as 
having a right to maintain and propagate those opinions, which 
they sincerely believe to be true ; and others have an equal right, 
and are equally bound, when they see errors propagated, to 
examine, and, with a suitable spirit, to expose and refute them. 
Nor are discussions of this kind by any means to be regarded as 
useless. When conducted with the meekness and benevolence of 
the Gospel, they are productive of various substantial benefits. 
Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall he increased. 

Had any of the numerous works which have been published on 
the subject of these letters been in general circulation among you, 
or had it been easy to put them in circulation, I should have thought 
it unnecessary to ask your attention to the following sheets. But 
as most of those works are too voluminous to be generally read; 
as several of the best of them are in a language not generally 
understood ; as many of them contain much matter inapplicable to 
the state of our country ; and as others, being intended to answer 
particular purposes, are too confined in their views, I have thought 
myself justifiable in attempting to lay the subject before you in a 
form somewhat different from that of any work with which I am 
acquainted. And in doing this, I am not without the hope, that 
you will be disposed to receive with some partiality, and to peruse 
with a kind interest, an address from one who has laboured 
sincerely, though with many infirmities, for many years, to promote 
your spiritual interest, and who has no greater pleasure than to 
see you walking in the truth. 

To treat the question considered in the following pages, in all 
its extent, and even to present the principal arguments with a 
fulness desirable to some readers, would be to fill several volumes. 
In contracting the discussion, therefore, within the limits of this 
little manual, I have laid myself under the necessity of being every 
where extremely brief, and of totally excluding many topics, both 
of argument and illustration, which might be profitably introduced. 
But, amidst this unavoidable brevity, I hope you will do me the 
justice to believe, that no assertion will be made but what I 
conscientiously consider as susceptible oftbe most abundant proof; 
that no arguments will be stated, but those which I believe to have 
stood immovably solid, after every attempt to answer them ; that 
no authorities will be produced, but those which are generally 
admitted to be of the most respectable character; and, in a word. 



INTRODUCTORY. 13 

that the whole subject will be presented as fairly and impartially 
as I am able to present it. With respect to authorities, indeed, I 
have endeavoured, in all cases in which I could obtain access to 
them, to quote the most distinguished Episcopal writers themselves. 
The concessions of learned and wary adversaries, in favour of our 
doctrines, carry with them peculiar weight. 

But before I conclude this introductory letter, suffer me, my dear 

brethren, to remind you,^that the names and powers of Christ's 

ministers, and the form of government adopted in his Church, 

though objects of inquiry, on various accounts, highly interesting, 

are yet to be numbered among the externals of religion. You may 

entertain perfectly correct opinions on these subjects, and yet, after 

all, have no just claim to the Christian character. You may be 

connected with the purest Church on earth, and may receive all its 

ordinances, from the hands of the most regular and valid ministry 

in Christendom, and yet be aliens from the commonwealth of 

Israel, and strangers to the covenant of promise. It is true, the 

externals of religion have a closer connexion with its spirit and 

power than is commonly imagined ; but still they are externals 

only, and must not be suffered to usurp a disproporlioned share of 

our regard. The scriptures speak to us frequently respecting the 

outward organization of the Church ; but they speak to us much 

more frequently ; they dwell with much more fervent and solemn 

emphasis, on that faith, which unites the soul to Jesus Christ ; that 

repentance which is unto life ; and that holiness of temper and 

of practice, without which no man can see the Lord, Let me 

beseech you, then, to remember, in every stage of this discussion, 

that, in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor 

uncircumcision, hut a new creature ; and that, while one saith, I 

am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, and another, I am of 

Cephas, unless we are all of Christ, united to him by a vital faith, 

and built upon him as the only foundation of our hope, we cannot 

see the kingdom of God. " Every believer in Jesus," says an 

eminent Episcopalian, " who is a partaker of the grace of God in 

'* truth, is a member of the true Church, to whatever particular 

"denomination of Christians he may belong ; without this, Popes, 

<^ Bishops, Presbyters, Pastors, or Deacons, are but the limbs of 

" Antichrist and of the Synagogue of Satan ; and belong to no 

" Church which the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls will 

" acknowledge for his own." 



( 14 ) 



LETTER n. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 



CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

In all disputes relating either to the faith or the practice of 
Christians, the first, and the grand question is, What saith the 
Scripture? This is the ultimate and the only infallible standard. 
Whatever is not found in the Bible cannot be considered, in any 
sense, as essential either to the doctrine or the order of the Church. 
This maxim is especially applicable to the subject now under 
discussion. As the Christian ministry is an office deriving its 
existence and its authority solely from Jesus Christ, the King and 
Head of his Church, it is obvious that his Word is the onli/ rule 
by which any claims to this office can properly be tried, and the 
duties and powers of those who bear it, ascertained. Every other 
standard is unauthorized, variable, and uncertain. On the word of 
God alone can we with confidence and safety rely for direction in 
things relating to his spiritual kingdom. The declarations of two 
eminent Episcopal writers on this subject are just and weighty, 
" The Scripture," says Dr. Sherlock, " is all of a piece 5 every 
*^ part of it agrees with the rest. The Fathers many times contra- 
" diet themselves and each other." In the same strain speaks the 
celebrated Chillingworth. — " I, for my part, after a long, and (as t 
" verily hope and believe^ impartial search of the true way to 
" eternal happiness, do profess plainly, that I cannot find any 
" rest for the sole of my feet, but upon this rock only, viz. the 
" Scripture. I see plainly, and with my own eyes, councils against 
" councils, some Fathers against others, the same Fathers against 
" themselves, a consent of Fathers of one age against a consent of 
" Fathers of another age, and the Church of one age against the 
" Church of another age." — But it is needless to multiply reason- 
ings or authorities on this subject. The sufficiency and infallibility 
of the Scriptures alone, as a rule of faith and practice, was assumed 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 15 

as the grand principle of the Reformation from Popery, and is 
acknowledged to be the foundation of the Protestant cause. 

Let us, then, examine what the Scriptures say on the point in 
dispute. And here it is proper to premise, that whoever expects 
to find any formal or explicit decisions on this subject, delivered 
by Christ or his apostles, will be disappointed. It is true, the dis- 
courses of the Saviour, and the writings of those who were inspired 
with the knowledge of his will, contain many observations and 
instructions concerning the Christian ministry : but they are 
chiefly employed in prescribing the qualifications, and urging the 
duties of those who serve God in the Gospel of his Son, rather 
than in defining their titles, in settling questions of rank and pre- 
cedence among them, or in guarding the immunities and honours 
of their office. The necessity of knowledge, piety, zeal, diligence, 
self-denial, meekness, patience, fortitude, and eminent holiness, in 
ministers of the Gospel, is urged with a frequency, a minuteness, 
and a force, which evince that, in the estimation of infinite Wisdom, 
they are regarded as of primary importance. While questions re- 
specting priority, and grades, and privileges, are never once for- 
mally discussed, only occasionally alluded to, and then in a man- 
ner so indistinct and cursory as to show that they were considered 
as objects of inferior moment. What are we to infer from this 
want of absolute explicitness in the sacred writings? Not that 
Church Government is a matter of small importance. It would be 
easy to prove that this is a very mischievous extreme. But we 
certainly must infer, that the Spirit of God does not teach us to lay 
so much stress on points of ecclesiastical order, as on those pre- 
cious doctrines which relate immediately to the Christian charac- 
ter and hope, which " form the essence, and fill the volume of the 
sacred records." 

But while the scriptures present no formal or explicit decisions 
on this subject, we find in them a mode of expression and a num- 
ber o( facts, from which we may, without difficulty, ascertain the 
outlines of the apostolic plan of Church order. By a careful 
attention to this language, and to these facts, if I mistake not, it 
will be easy to show — 

That Christ gave but one commission for the office of the Gos- 
pel ministry, and that this office, of course, is one. 

That the words Bishop, and Elder, or Presbyter, are uniformly 



16 LETTER 11. 

used in the New Testament as convertible titles for the same 
office. 

That the same character and powers which are ascribed, in the 
sacred writings, to Bishops, are also ascribed to Presbyters ; thus 
plainly establishing the identity of order j as well as of name. And 
finally, 

That the Christian Church was organized by the apostles after 
the model of the Jewish Synagogue, which was unquestionably 
Presbyterian in its form.* 

If these four positions can be established, there will remain no 
doubt on any candid mind how the question in dispute ought to 
be decided. 

I. It is evident that Christ gave but one commission for the 
office of the Gospel ministry, and that this office, of course, is one. 

The commission which our Lord gave to his apostles, and in 
them to his ministers in every age, is expressed in the following 
words — And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power 
is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and 
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost — Teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you : and lo 1 am with you 
always, even unto the end of the world.f Then said Jesus to 
them again. Peace be unto you : As my Father hath sent me, even 
so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, 
and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost — whosesoever sins 
ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye 
retain, they are retained.\ These passages form the grand com- 
mission under which all lawful ministers have acted from the mo- 
ment in which it was delivered to the present time ; and under 
which they must and will act to the end of the world. 

This commission, it is confessed on all hands, was originally 
given to one order of ministers only, viz. the eleven Apostles. The 

* Though the word Presbyterian Is commonly used to designate those 
Churches, which are governed by Presbyteries and Synods, as the 
Churches of Geneva, Holland, Scotland, and those of this denomination 
in the United States,- yet all those Churches are, in the leading sense of 
the word, Presbyterian, in which Presbyters ordain, and are regarded as 
holding the highest ecclesiastical office. 

t Matth. xxviii. 18, 19, 20. + John xx. 21, 22, 23. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 17 

seventy disciples had been employed on a temporary service, and 
that, strictly speaking, under the Jewish dispensation. For as the 
Christian Church did not receive its distinct constitution till after 
the resurrection of Christ ; as tlie Apostles were made fixed officers 
of the Church, by virtue of this new commission, and not of any 
former appointment ; and as no such new commission was given 
to the seventy disciples, it is manifest that they are not to be 
considered as ministers of the New Testament dispensation at all. 
The Saviour, then, in this last solemn interview, addressed the 
eleven only. To them he committed the whole ministerial 
authority in his kingdom. The commission, therefore, when it 
was first delivered, certainly constituted no more than one order of 
Gospel ministers. 

That this commission embraces the highest and fullest ecclesias- 
tical power, that has been, is, or can be possessed by any of the 
ministers of Christ, all Protestants allow. And that it conveys a 
light to preach the word, to administer sacraments, and to ordain 
other men to the work of the ministry, Episcopalians, as well as 
others, grant. Now this commission either expired with the apostles, 
to whom it was originally delivered, or it did not. If it did expire 
with them, then no miaisters of the Gospel, since their day, have 
had any commission, for there is no other left on record. But if it 
did not expire with them, then it is directed equally to their 
successors in all ages. But who are these successors r Demonstrably 
all those who are authorized to perform those functions which this 
commission recognizes, that is, to preach, and to administer the 
sealing ordinances of the Church. Every minister of the Gospel, 
therefore, who has these powers, is a successor of the apostles, is 
authorized by this commission, and stands on a footing of official 
equality with those to whom it was originally delivered, so far as 
their office was ordinary and perpetual. 

It is remarkable, that, in this commission, dispensing the Word 
of life J and administering Sacraments, are held forth as the most 
prominent, important, and solemn duties of Christian ministers. 
The power of ordaining others is not mentioned at all ; and we 
only infer that it is included, because the commission recognizes 
the continuance of the office and duties of ministers to the end of 
the world. Must we not infer then, that all who have a right to 
preach and 6ap<2«e, have a right, of course, to ordain ? Does i< 
C 



18 LETTER II. 

comport with the spirit of this commission, to represent the former 
functions, which Hre mentioned with so much distinctness and 
solemnity, as pertaining to the lowest order in the Church; and 
the latter, which is only included by inference, as reserved for a 
higher order ? Those who are confessed to have the most important 
and distinguished powers conveyed by a commission, must be 
considered as possessing the whole. What God hath joined 
together, let not man put asunder. 

There seems to be no method of evading the force of this 
argument, but by supposing, that the ministerial powers conveyed 
by this commission, were afterwards divided; and that, while 
some retained the lohole, others were invested with only a part of 
these powers. In other words, that the same commission, since 
the days of the apostles, makes some Bishops, clothed with the 
highest powers, and other Presbyters, with powers of a subordinate 
kind. But does not this supposition carry with it its own refutation ? 
Can one form of investiture constitute different orders ? Formal 
reasoning cannot be necessary to set aside such an absurdity. But 
were the supposition which has been stated ever so legitimate on 
the score of reasoning, it is altogether unsupported in point of fact. 
Where is the evidence of this pretended division of ministerial 
powers ? When was it made ? By whom ? In what manner were 
the powers in question divided ? The commission itself gives no 
hint of such a division. No subsequent passage of scripture 
suggests any thing of the kind. Nothing that so much as seems to 
warrant such a supposition, is to be found in all the book of God. 
Nay, the contrary most manifeslly appears. For when, after our 
Lord's ascension, we find the apostle Paul, and other inspired 
writers, giving instructions concerning the ministerial office and 
duties, they always speak in the spirit of the original commission ; 
and represent teaching men the way of salvation, edifying the 
Church, and administering the seals of the covenant, as the highest 
functions belonging to this office. These are ever the principal 
objects to which their precepts and exhortations are directed, and 
which they evidently regard as paramount to all questions of 
precedence and privilege. 

Until, then, the friends of three orders in the Christian ministry 
produce, from Scripture, some other commission than that which 
we have seen ; or find some explicit warrant for a threefold 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 19 

division of the powers which this one commission conveys, we are 
compelled to conclude, that our Lord contemplated but one stand- 
ing order of Gospel ministers in his Church ; and that all who are 
empowered to preach his Word, and administer his sacraments, 
belong to this order. 

.11. That Bishops are not, by divine right, diflferent from, or 
superior to, Freshyters^ is further evident, because the terms 
Bishop and Presbyter are uniformly used in the New Testament, 
as convertible titles for the same office. 

The Greek word (s-jnCxo'Troj) which we translate Bishop^ literally 
signifies an Overseer. This word appears to have been adopted 
by the apostles from the Greek translation of the Old Testament 
(generally called the Septuagijii) which was in common use among 
the Christians of that day. In this celebrated version, the word 
is employed frequently, and to designate officers of various grades 
and characters, civil, military, and ecclesiastical. The inspired 
writers of the New Testament, observing that this word, as a title 
of office, was much in use, and familiarly understood among those 
who had the scriptures in the popular language in their hands, 
thought proper to adopt and apply it to the officers of Christ's 
spiritual kingdom. 

The word (ir^ed^vrs^og) which the translators of the New Tes- 
tament render Elder, and which precisely answers to the word 
Presbyter, literally signifies an aged person. But as among the 
Jews, and the eastern nations generally, persons advanced in age 
were commonly selected to fill stations of dignity and authority, 
the word Presbyter, or Elder, became, in process of time, an 
established title of office. The Jews had rulers called by this 
name, not only over their nation, but also over every city, and every 
synagogue. To a Jew, therefore, no term could be addressed 
more perfectly intelligible and familiar. The apostles finding this 
to be the case with most of those among whom they ministered, 
gave the name of Elder to the pastors and rulers of the Churches 
which they organized ; and the rather because these pastors were 
generally in fact taken from among the more grave and aged con- 
verts to the Christian faith. 

From this statement it will appear, that Presbyter, if we attend 
to its original meaning, is a word of more honourable import than 
Bishop. Presbyter is expressive of authority, Bishop of duty. 



20 l^ETTER II. 

The former implies the dignity and power of a ruler ; the latter 
conveys the idea of work, or of executing a prescribed task. But 
whatever may be the comparative degrees of honour expressed by 
these terms, it is certain that they are uniformly employed, in the 
New Testament, as convertible titles for the same office. An 
attentive consideration of the following passages will establish this 
position beyond all doubt. 

The first which I shall quote is found in Acts xx. IJ. 28. Jnd 
from Miletus he sefit to Ephesus, and called the Elders (or Pres- 
byterSf •tt^so'^uts^ou^) of the Church, And when they were come to 
him, he said unto them, Take heed unto yourselves and to all the 
flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (or 
Bishops, S'jfifTxo'jfovg) to feed the Church of God which he hath 
purchased with his own blood. — In this passage it is evident, that 
the same persons who, in the 17lh verse are styled Elders or Fres- 
hyters, are in the 28th called Bishops. This, indeed, is so incon- 
testible, that the most zealous Episcopalian, so far as I know, has 
never called it in question. It is further observable, that in the 
city of Ephesus there were a number of Bishops, who governed 
the Church in that city as co-ordinate rulers, or in common coun- 
cil. This is wholly irreconcilable with the principles of modern 
episcopacy; but perfectly coincides with the Presbyterian doc- 
trine^ that scriptural Bishops are the Pastors of single congrega- 
tions.* 

• It has been much controverted whether, in each of the larger cities, 
in which Christianity was first planted, such as Jerusalem^ Ephesus^ An- 
tioch, Corinthy &c. there was more than one congregation of Christians. 
In other words, whether by the Church at Ephesus we are to understand, 
a single congregation, or several separate societies, as the Presbyterian 
Church in New-York comprehends several congregations? — From the 
multitudes that are said to have believed in those cities, it is probable 
there were several thousands of Christians in each of them; and as the 
places in which they assembled for public worship were small, perhaps 
most of them apartments in private dwellings, we cannot suppose that 
they were all able to assemble at the same time and place. The expe- 
dient, therefore, of dividing themselves into small associations, would 
seem natural, and even unavoidable. We know that in the days of 
the apostles there were a number of Bishops in each of the cities of 
Ephesus zud Philfppi. It is most probable that these were pastors of 
so many different congregations. We are by no means to suppose, 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 21 

The next passage to our purpose is the address of the apostle 
Paul to the Philippians, in the introduction of his Epistle to that 
Church. Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to 
all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the 
JBishops and Deacons. Here, as well, as in the case of Ephesus, 
just mentioned, we find the inspired writer speaking of a number 
o{ Bishops in a single city. It is true, Dr. Hammond, an eminent 
Episcopal writer, to avoid the force of this fact, so unfriendly to 
modern Episcopacy, would persuade us that Philippi was a Me- 
tropolitan city, and that the Bishops here spoken of, did not all 
belong to that city, but also included those of the neighbouring 
cities, under that Metropolis. But this supposition is not in the 
least degree countenanced by the apostle's language; the plain, 
unsophisticated meaning of which evidently refers us to the 
Bishops and Deacons which were at Philippi, and there only. 
Besides, Dr. Whitby, a later, and equally eminent Episcopal 
divine, assures us, that Philippi was not, at that time, a Metropoli- 
tan city, but under Thessalonica, which was the Metropolis of all 
Macedonia, Dr. Stillingjleet has also clearly shown, that there 
are no traces to be found within the first six centuries, of the 
Church at Philippi being a Metropolitan Church. Dr. Maurice, 
another zealous and able writer in favour of diocesan episcopacy 
goes further. He acknowledges that Dr. Hammond stands alone, 
in the solution of the difficulty above mentioned ; that he cannot 
undertake to defend it ; and that " he could never find sufficient 
" reason to believe these Bishops any other than Presbyters, as 
" the generality of the Fathers, and of the Church of England 
" have done."* 

The third passage to be adduced is in Titus i. It is as follows. 
For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order 
the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders, {Presbyters^ in 
every city, as I had appointed thee. If any be blameless, the 

however, that in those days of persecution and peril, when Christians 
were almost afraid of appearing in public, and when their meetings were 
often held under the cover of midnight, that their division into parishes, 
or even into congregations, was as regular and as precisely defined as at 
present; or that the same principles of reasoning in all cases apply to 
those small house-churches, as to modern congregations. 
* Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy, p. 29. 



22 LETTER II. 

husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused ofriot, 
or unruly. For a Bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; 
not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, 
not given to filthy lucre, &c. Here the apostle, in directing 
Titus to ordain Elders, enjoins upon him to choose those officers 
from among the most temperate, blameless, and faithful believers; 
and the reason he assigns for this injunction is, that a Bishop must 
he blameless ; evidently meaning, that Presbyter and Bishop are 
the same office. On any other construction, the different parts of 
the address are unconnected, and the whole destitute of force. But 
these are charges which no man who is conversant with the writ- 
ings o( Paul, would ever think of bringing against them. 

This passage also establishes another point. It not only shows 
that the Elders here to be ordained, were considered and 
denominated Bishops, thereby proving the identity of the office 
designated by these names; but it likewise proves, beyond 
controversy, that, in apostolic times, it was customary to have a 
plurality of these Bishops in a single city. We have before seen 
that there were a number of Bishops in the city of Ephesus, and a 
number more in the city o( Philippi : but in the passage before us 
we find Titus directed to ordain a plurality of them in every city. 
This perfectly agrees with the Presbyterian doctrine, that scriptural 
Bishops were the pastors of single congregations, or Presbyters, 
invested, either separately or conjointly, as the case might be, with 
pastoral charges ; but it is impossible to reconcile it with the 
modern notions of diocesan episcopacy. 

There is one more passage, equally conclusive in this argument. 
It is that which is found in 1 Peter v. 1,2. The Elders (or 
Presbyters) which are among you, I exhort^ who am also an Elder, 
and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of 
the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God which is 
among you, taking the oversight thereof (s'jrio'xo'n'ouvTSj, that is, 
exercising the office, or performing the duties of Bishops over them), 
not by restraint, but willingly ; not for filthy lucre, but of a 
ready mind. The construction of this passage is obvious. It 
expressly represents Presbyters as Bishops of the flock, and 
solemnly exhorts them to exercise the powers, and perform the 
duties of this office. 

In short, the title of Bishop, as applied to ministers of the Gospel, 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 23 

occurs only four times in the New Testament : in three of these 
cases, there is complete proof that it is given to those who are styled 
Presbyters; and in the fourth case, there is strong presumption 
that it is applied in the same manner. On the other hand, the 
Apostle Peter, as we have just seen, in addressing an authoritative 
exhortation toother ministers, calls himself a Presbyter. The same 
is done by the Apostle John, in the beginning of his second and 
third epistles— 27*6 Elder {Presbyter) unto the well beloved Gains 
—The Elder unto the Elect Lady, &c. Could more complete 
evidence be desired, that both these titles belonged equally, in the 
days of the apostles, to the same office ? 

But it is not necessary further to pursue the proof that these 
names are indiscriminately applied in scripture to the same office. 
This is freely and unanimously acknowledged by the most respecta- 
ble Episcopal writers. In proof of this acknowledgment, it were 
easy to multiply quotations. A single authority shall suffice. Dr. 
Whitby confesses, that " both the Greek and Latin Fathers do, 
" with one consent, declare, that Bishops were called Presbyters^ 
" and Presbyters Bishops, in apostolic times, the names being then 
"common." Notes on Philip^ i. 1. 

I know that many advocates for diocesan episcopacy have 
affected to make light of the argument, in favour of the parity of 
of ministers, drawn from the indiscriminate application of these , 
scriptural names. Indeed, some of them have attempted, by florid 
declamation and ludicrous comparisons, to turn the whole into 
ridicule. This is an extremely convenient method of evading the 
force of an argument which cannot be fairly answered. But to 
evade an argument is not to refute it. Besides, have those who 
reject all reasoning drawn from the application of scriptural names, 
considered whither this principle will lead them? Have they 
reflected how large a portion of those weapons with which they 
defend the Divine character, and the vicarious sacrijfice of the 
blessed Redeemer, against the attacks of Socinians, and other 
heretics, are necessarily surrendered, if the names and titles of 
scripture are so vague and indecisive as they would, in this case, 
represent them ? Will they venture to charge the great Head of 
the Church, who dictated the scriptures, with addressing his people 
in a language altogether indistinct, and calculated to mislead them ; 
and that too on a subject which, they tell us, lies at the foundation 



24 LETTER 11. 

not merely of the welfare, but of the very existence of the Church ? 
Surely these consequences cannot have been considered. The 
argument, then, drawn from the indiscriminate application of the 
names Bishop and Presbyter to the same persons, is conclusive. 
It was pronounced to be so, by the venerable and learned Jerome^ 
more than 1400 years ago; and his judgment has been adopted 
and supported by some of the greatest and best divines that have 
adorned the Christian Church, from that period down to the 
present day. 

But we have something more to produce in support of our sys- 
tem, than the indiscriminate application of the names in question 
to one order of ministers. We can show, 

III. That the same character , duties, and powers, which are 
ascribed in the sacred writings to Bishops, are also ascribed to 
Freshyters ; thereby plainly establishing their identity oi order as 
well as of name. 

Had Bishops been constituted, by the great Head of the Church, 
an order of ministers different from Presbyters, and superior lo 
them, we might confidently expect to find a different commission 
given ; different qualifications required 5 and a different sphere of 
duty assigned. But nothing of all this appears. On the contrary, 
the inspired writers, when they speak of ministers of the Gospel, 
by which ever of these names they are distinguished, give the 
same description of their character; represent the same gifts 
and graces as necessary for them ; enjoin upon them the same 
duties ; and, in a word, exhibit them as called to the same work, 
and as bearing the same office. To prove this, let us attend to 
some of the principal powers vested in Christian ministers, and 
see whether the scriptures do not ascribe them equally to Presby- 
ters and Bishops. 

I. That Presbyters had, in apostolic times, as they now have, 
authority to preach the word, and administer sacraments, is uni- 
versally allowed by Episcopalians themselves. Now, if we consult 
either the original commission, or subsequent instructions given 
ministers, in various parts of the New Testament, we shall find 
these constantly represented as the highest acts of ministerial 
authority ; as the grand powers in which all others are included. 
Instead of finding in the sacred volume the smallest hint, that 
ordaining ministers, and governing the Church, were functions of 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. ^5 

an higher order than dispensing the word of eternal life and 
the seals of the everlasting covenant ; the reverse is plainly and 
repeatedly taught. The latter, we have already seen, are the most 
prominent objects in the original commission ; they formed the 
principal business of the apostles wherever they went ; and all 
the authority with which they were vested is represented as being 
subservient to the promulgation of that Gospel which is the power 
of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Preaching 
and administering sacramentSy therefore, are the highest acts bf 
ministerial authority; they are far above ordination and govern- 
ment, as the ewe? is more excellent than the means ; astheswfts^awce 
is more important than (he form. 

If, then, Presbyters be authorized, as all acknowledge, to per- 
form these functions, we infer that they are the highest order of 
Gospel ministers. Those who are empowered to execute the most 
dignified and the most useful duties pertaining to the ministerial 
office, can have no superiors in that office. The Episcopal system, 
then, by depressing the teacher ^ for the sake of elevating the ruler, 
inverts the sacred order, and departs both from the letter and the 
spirit of Scripture. The language of Scripture is. Let the Pres- 
byters who rule well be counted worthy of double honour, espe- 
cially THEY WHO LABOUR IN THE WORD AND DOCTRINE. But the 

language of modern episcopacy is, that labouring in the word and 
doctrine is a lower service in the Church, and government a 
more exalted f that bearing rule is more honourable and more 
important than to edify — a language which to be refuted needs 
only to be stated. 

From these premises T am compelled to conclude, that the offi- 
cer of the Christian Church who is authorized to preach and 
administer sacraments, cannot be an inferior or subordinate 
officer, but must be equal to, or rather the same with, the scriptural 
Bishop. And in this reasoning I am supported by the judgment 
of Bishop Burnet, who declares — " Since I look upon the sacra- 
** mental actions, as the highest of sacred performances, T cannot 
" but acknowledge those who are empowered for them, must be of 
" the highest office in the Church."* 

2. The power of government, or of ruling the Church, is also 

* Vindication of the Church and State of Scotland, p. 336. 
D 



26 LETTER II. 

committed to Presbyters. Tiiis is denied by Episcopalians 5 
but the Scriptures, expressly affirm it. The true meaning of the 
word Presbyter, in its official application, is a church ruler or 
governor^ as Episcopalinns themselves allow. Hence the " over- 
sight" or government of the Church is in Scripture expressly 
assigned to Presbyters as their proper duty. The Elders to whom 
the Apostle Peter directed his first epistle, certainly had this 
power. To them it is said. The Elders ivhich are among you I 
exhort. Feed the jlock of God, taking the oversight thereof, not 
by constraint, but willingly ; neither as being lords over God^s 
heritage, but as ensamples to the flock. Scarcely any words 
could express more distinctly than these the power of ruling in the 
Church. But, as if to place the matter beyond all doubt, these 
Elders are exhorted to use this power with moderation, and not 
to tyrannize, or " lord it over God's heritage." Why subjoin 
this caution, if they were not invested with a governing authority 
at all ? 

The case of the Elders of Ephesus is still more decisive. — 
When the Apostle Paul was about to take his final leave of them, 
he addressed them thus : Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, 
and to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you 
overseers, to feed the church of God which he hath purchased 
with his own blood, &c. The word here translated feed, is 
crojjuiajvejv, which means taking such care as a shepherd does of his 
flock; and, of course, implies icatching over, guiding, and 
ruling, as well ns feeding. Here the government of this Church, 
then, as well as ministering in the word, is evidently vested in the 
Elders. No mention is made of any individual, who had the 
"whole ruling power vested in him, or even a larger share of it than 
others. Had there been a Bishop in this Church, in the Episcopal 
sense of the word, that is a single person of superior order to these 
Elders, and to whom, of course, they were in subjection, it is 
strange that, in this whole account, we do not once find the most 
distant allusion to him.* When the Apostle was telling the 
Elders that they should never see his face more, and that dissen- 

* The reader will bear in mind, that the zealous advocates for Epis- 
copacy suppose and assert that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus at this 
time. On what grounds this assertion is made will be seen in ihe next 
letter. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 21 

sions and difficulties were about to arise in their Church, could 
there have been a more fit occasion to address their superior, had 
there been such a man present? To whom could instruction have 
been so properly directed, in this crisis, as to the Chief Shepherd ? 
On the other hand, supposing such a superior to have existed, and 
to have been prevented by sickness, or any other means, from 
attending at this conference, why did not the Apostle remind the 
Elders of their duty to him ? Why did he not exhort them, in 
the strife and divisions which he foretold as approaching, to cleave 
to ihe'ir Bishop f and submit to him, as the best means of unity and 
peace ? And, finally, supposing their Bishop to have been dead, 
and the office vacant, why did not the Apostle, when about to take 
leave of a flock so much endeared to him, select a Bishop for them, 
ordain him with his own hands, and commit the Church to his 
care? But not a word of all this appears. No hint is given of the 
existence of such a superior. On the contrary, the Apostle declares 
to these Elders, that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops over 
the Church at Ephesus ; he exhorts them to rule that Church ; and 
when about to depart, never to see them more, he leaves them in 
possession of this high trust. 

But the passage just quoted from 1 Tim. v. is absolutely conclu- 
sive on this point. Let the Elders thai rule well be counted tvorthy 
of double honour,^ especially they ivho labour in word and doctrine* 
Here the power of government in the Church is ascribed to 
Presbyters in terms which cannot be rendered more plain and 
decisive. Here, also, we find officers of the Church who are not 
recognized in the Episcopal system, but who are always found in 
the Presbyterian Church, viz. riding Elders, or those who are 
appointed to assist in governing the Church, but who do not 
preach or administer sacraments. But this is not all : bearing 
rule in the Church is unequivocally represented in this passage as 
a less honourable employment than preaching, or labouring in the 
word and doctrine. The mere ruling Elder, who performs his 
duty well, is declared to be worthy of '^ double honour;" but the 
Elder who, to this function, adds the more dignified and important 
one of preaching the Gospel of salvation, is declared to be entitled 
to honour of a still higher kind. 

As this passage is directly hostile to the claims of modern 
Episcopacy, great exertions have been made to set aside its 



28 LETTER I. 

testimony. To effect this the most unnatural glosses have been 
adopted. Instead of formally stating and answering these, I will 
content myself with delivering the opinions of three distinguished 
divines, whose judgment on such a subject will be despised by 
none. Dr. Owen declares — " This would be a text of uncontrolla- 
"ble evidence, if it had any thing but prejudice and interest to 
"contend whh. On the first proposal of this text— TAa^ the 
" Elders who rule well are worthy of double honour, especially 
" they who labour in word and doctrine^ a rational man, who is 
" unprejudiced, who never heard of the controversy about ruling 
" Elders, can hardly avoid an apprehension that there are two 
" sorts of Elders, some that labour in the word and doctrine, and 
" some who do not do so. The truth is, it was interest and prejudice 
" that first caused some learned men to strain their wits to find out 
" evasions from the evidence of this testimony ; being so found, 
" some others, of meaner abilities, have been entangled by them." 
The language of Dr. Whiiaker, a zealous and learned Episcopalian, 
is equally strong and decided, with regard to this passage. " By 
" these words," says he, " the Apostle evidently distinguishes be- 
" tween the Bishops and the inspectors of the Church. If all who rule 
" well be worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the 
" word and doctrine, it is plain there were some who did not so 
" labour ; for if all had been of this description, the meaning 
" would have been absurd ; but the word especially points out a 
" difference. If I should say, that all who study well at the 
" university are worthy of double honour, especially they who 
" labour in the study of theology ^ I must either mean that all do 
" not apply themselves to the study of theology, or I should speak 
<' nonsense. Wherefore I confess that to be the most genuine sense 
*< by which pastors and teachers are distinguished from those who 
" only govern." — Frcelect. ap. Didioclav. p. 681. Equally to 
our purpose is the opinion of that acute and learned Episcopalian 
Dr. Whitby, in his Note on this passage. " The Elders of the 
Jews," says he, " were of two sorts; 1st. Such as governed in 
" the Synagogue ; and 2dly. Such as niinistered in reading and 
i' expounding their Scriptures, &;c. And these the Apostle here 
" declares to be the most honourable, and worthy of the chiefest 
" reward. Accordingly, the Aposlle, reckoning up the offices God 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 29 

" had appointed in the Church, places teachers before governments. 
« 1 Corin. xii. 28." 

3. The Scriptures also represent Pres%^ers as empowered to 
ordain, and as actually exercising this power. Of this we can 
produce at least three instances of the most decisive kind. 

The first is recorded in Acts xiii. as follows. Now there were 
in the Church that was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers, 
as Barnabas, and Simeon, that was called Niger, and Lucius of 
Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the 
Tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the liord, and fasted, 
the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the 
work whereunto I have called them. And lohen they had 
fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them 
away. This is the most ample account of an ordination to be 
found in Scripture ; and it is an account which, were there no 
other, would be sufficient to decide the present controversy in our 
favour. Who were the ordainers on this occasion ? They were not 
Apostles. Lest this should be supposed, their names are given. 
They were not Bishops, in the modern sense of the word ; for 
there were a number of them ministering together in the same 
Church. They were the Prophets and Teachers of the Church at 
Antioch. With respect to these Teachers, no higher character has 
ever been claimed for them than that of Presbyters, labouring in 
the loord and doctrine. And as to the Prophets, though the 
precise nature of their endowments and office be not certainly 
known ; yet there is complete evidence that they did not sustain 
that particular[ecclesiastical rank, with which Episcopalians contend 
that, in the days of the Apostles, the power of ordaining was 
connected. Still these ministers ordained; and they did this 
under the immediate direction of the Holy Ghost, who cannot be 
supposed to have sanctioned any departure from an essential 
principle of Church government. 

To invalidate this reasoning, some Episcopal writers have 
suggested that the ordination here recorded was performed not by 
the Teachers, but by the Prophets only. But nothing like this 
appears in the sacred text. On the contrary, its plain and simple 
import forbids such a construction. The command to ordain Paul 
and Barnabas was directed both to the Prophets afid Teachers ; 
and we are told that they proceeded immediately to the performance 



30 LETTER II. 

of the solemn act to which they were called. To suppose, therefore, 
that the Teachers either did not engage in this ordination ; or that, 
if they did participate in the transaction, it was rather as witnesses 
expressing consent, than as ordainers conveying authority, or 
ratifying a commission, is a supposition as illegitimate in reasoning, 
as it is repugnant to the sacred narrative. 

Another plea urged against this example is, that it is not to be 
considered as an ordination at all 5 that both Paul and Barnabas 
had been recongnized as ministers of the Gospel several years 
before this event ; and that it is rather 10 be regarded as a solemn 
benediction, previous to their entering on a particular mission 
among the Gentiles. It is readily granted that Paw/ and Barnabas 
had been engaged in preaching the Gospel long before this time. 
But there is no evidence that either of them had ever before been 
set apart by human ordainers. It seemed good, therefore, to the 
Holy Ghost, that before they entered on their grand mission to 
the Gentiles, they should receive that kind of ordination, which 
was intended to be perpetual in the Church. No example of such 
an ordination had yet been given. If the practice were ever to be 
established, it was necessary that a beginning should be made. And 
as these missionaries were about to travel among a people, who 
were not familiar with the rite of ordination by the imposition of 
hands, so well understood by the Jews, it was judged proper by 
infinite Wisdom to set this example for imitation in all subsequent 
periods. And as if to give the strongest practical declaration of 
ministerial parity, Faul, with all the elevation of his gifts, and all 
the Instre of his apostolic character, submitted to be ordained, 
together with his brother Barnabas, agreeably to the regular 
principles of Church order, by the prophets and teachers of the 
Church of Antioch. 

It may further be observed, that if this be not an ordination, it 
will be difficult to say what constitutes one. Here were fasting 
prayer, the imposition of hands, and every circumstance attending 
a formal investiture with the ministerial office, as particularly 
stated as in any instance on record. And, accordingly,^ Dr. 
Hammond, one of the most able and zealous advocates for 
Episcopacy, does not scruple to pronounce it a regular ordination ; 
though for the sake of maintaining his system, he falls into the 
absurdity of supposing, without a shadow of proof from_any source, 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 31 

that Simeon, Lusius and Manaen, were diocesan Bishops; a 
supposition wholly irreconcilable with the diocesan scheme, since 
they were all 7ninistering in the Church at Antioch. Bishop 
Taylor, another eminent Episcopal writer, considers this transaction 
as a regular ordination ; for speaking of Paul, he says—" He had 
" the special honour to be chosen in an extraordinary way ; yet 
" he had something of the ordinary too; for, in an extraordinary 
" manner he was sent to be ordained in an ordinary ministry. His 
" designation was as immediate as that of the eleven apostlies, 
*' though his ordination was not," This also was the judgment of 
the learned Dr. Lightfoot. " No better reason," says he, " can be 
<* given of this present action, than that the Lord did hereby set 
" down a platform of ordaining ministers to the Church of the 
" Gentiles in future times." And, finally, Chrysostom, one of the 
early Fathers, delivers the same opinion. He asserts that " Faul 
was ordained at Antioch,^^ and quotes this passage from the Acts 
of the Apostles in support of his assertion. 

But, after all, it does not destroy the argument, even if we 
concede that the case before us was not a regular ordination. It 
was certainly a solemn spparation to the work to which the Holy 
Ghost had called them. This is the language of the inspired writer, ' 
and cannot be controverted. Now, it is a principle which pervades 
the scriptures, that an inferior is never called formally to pronounce 
benediction on an official superior. Did any man ever hear, in a 
church organized upon prelatical principles of Presbyters under- 
taking, on any occasion, to set apart a Bishop, or a group of 
Bishops, to a particular service, by solemn prayer and the imposition 
of hands ? On this principle alone, then, whether it relates to a 
regular ordination or not, the narrative before us appears utterly 
to subvert prelacy. 

The next instance of an ordination performed by Presbyters, is 
that of Timothy, which is spoken of by the Apostle Paul, in the 
following terms. 1 Tim. iv. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in 
thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the 
hands of the Presbytery. All agree that the Apostle is here 
speaking of Timotlvfs ordination ; and this ordination is expressly 
said to have been performed with the laying on of the hands of 
the Presbytery— i\i^i is, of the Eldership, or a council of Presbyters. 
To this instance of Presbyterian ordination it is objected, by 
some Episcopal writers, that although a council o( presbyters up- 



32 LETTER II. 

pear, from this passage, to have laid their hands on Timothy upon 
this occasion, yet the ordination was actually performed by the 
Apostle alone, who elsewhere addresses Timothy in this language : 
Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the 
gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands. 
2 Tijn. i. 6. They contend that, as Paul speaks of the ordination 
as being performed by the putting on of his hands, and with the 
laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, we are to infer that the 
power was conveyed by him only, and that the Presbyters only 
imposed their hands by v/ay of concurrence, and to express their 
approbation. 

But the Apostle, in speaking of a gift conveyed to Timothy by 
the putting on of his hands, either refers to the ordination of that 
young minister, or he does not. Some have supposed that he does 
not refer to that transaction at all, but to an occasion and a solemnity 
altogether different, when, by the imposition of his hands alone, he 
communicated to Timothy the extraordinary gifts of the Holy 
Ghost, to impart which, by the laying on of hands, belonged, as is 
generally supposed, exclusively to the Apostles. If this supposition 
be admitted, and some of the greatest divines that ever lived have 
adopted it, then the objection before us totally falls to the ground, 
and it follows, that the presbyters alone were the ordainers in this 
instance. If, on the other hand, we suppose that the Apostle, in 
both passages, is speaking of the ordination of Timothy, and that he 
and the Presbytery both participated in the transaction, the suppo- 
sition will be equally fatal to the Episcopal cause. For let it be 
remembered, that all Episcopalians, in this controversy, take for 
granted, that Timothy was, at this time, ordained a Diocesan 
Bishop. But if this were so, how came presbyters to lay their 
hands on him at his ordination } We know xhdX presbyters in the 
Episcopal Church, are in the habit of laying on their hands, with 
those of the Bishop, in ordaining presbyters ; but was it ever 
heard of, in the Christian Church, after the distinction between 
Bishops and presbyters arose, that those who admitted this dis- 
tinction suffered presbyters to join with Bishops, by imposing 
hands in the consecration of a Bishop ? No ; on Episcopal princi- 
ples, this would be an irregularity of the most absurd and inadmis- 
sible kind. To this our opponents reply, that the Presbyters in 
this case joined with the Apostle in the imposition of hands, not 



TEiSTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 33 

as ordainers, but merely to express their concurrence and appro- 
bation. But do FreshyterSj even in this sense, unite in imposing 
hands in the consecration of a diocesan BisJiop ? Or were they 
ever known to do so in Episcopal Churches ? Besides, after all, 
the whole idea of some laying on their hands in ordination, not as 
ordainers, but merely to express their approbation j is a conceit 
without any foundation in scripture ; contradicted by the earliest 
and best records of the primitive Church ; and manifestly invented 
to evade the force of an irresistible argument. I challenge any one 
to produce me a single passage from the word of God, or from any 
Christian writer within the first three hundred years after Christ, 
which gives the least countenance to this fanciful supposition. 

But it is still urged, that the mode of expression is different with 
respect to the imposition of the Apostle's hands, and those of the 
Presbytery ; that Timothy is said to have received his gift by the 
former, and with the latter. And accordingly much ingenious 
criticism has been wasted on the prepositions (J<a and jasra, in order 
to show, that the former expresses agency, while the latter more 
commonly signifies mere concurrence: from which it has been 
inferred that Paul alone was the real ordainer, or, in other words, 
conveyed the ministerial authority by the imposition of his hands ; 
while the Presbyters laid on their hands only as witnesses, and for 
the purpose of giving their countenance to the transaction. I 
forbear to apply to this criticism those epithets which it has always 
appeared to me to deserve ; nor shall I detain you by attempting 
to expose the weakness of that cause whose advocates fly for suc- 
cour to a quibble, founded on the doubtful interpretation of two 
Greek particles. It is enough for me to assure such of you, my 
brethren, as are not able to judge for yourselves in this matter, that 
the criticism and quibble in question are wholly unworthy of your 
regard ; that these words both frequently signify by as well as with, 
and express agency, as well as concurrence ;* and that the 

• It is remarkable that the learned Jerome^ more than 1400 years ag'o, 
adopted the Presbyterian construction of this passage. He thus trans- 
lates 1 Tim. iv. 14. Noli negUgere gratiam quasin te est, quse tibi data est 
prophetia, per impositionem manuum Preshyterii : and expressly adduces 
the passage to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are, by divine right, 
equal. The same construction of the passage has been adopted by the 
most learned and judicious commentators ever since. 
E 



34 LETTER IL 

objection founded on any supposed difference of meaning in their 
application to tills case, lias not received tlie countenance of some 
even of the most learned and respectable advocates for diocesan 
Episcopacy. 

Some Episcopal writers, in order to avoid the difficulties above 
slated, have taken the liberty of supposing, that by the word 
Frsshytery (■jr'gerf^uTSgjov) in this passage is to be understood, not a 
council of Freshyters^ but the College of the Apostles. But this 
supposition is adopted without the least proof or probability. No 
instance has been, or can be produced, either from the New Tes- 
tament, or from any early Christian writer, of the Apostles, as a 
collective body, being called a Presbytery. On the contrary, this 
word is always used, in scripture, in the writings of the primitive 
fathers, and particularly in the writings o( Ignatius, (who is of the 
highest authority with our opponents in this dispute,) to signify a 
council of Presbyters, and never in any other sense. But, allowing 
the word Presbytei^y to have the meaning contended for, and that 
Timothy was ordained by the bench of Apostles, how came the 
modest and humble Paul to speak of the whole gift as conveyed 
by his hands, and not so much as to mention any other name ? 
Were all the rest of the Apostles mere concurring spectators, and 
and not real ordainers, as before pleaded ? Then it must follow, 
not only that Paul claimed a superiority over his brethren, which 
was never heard of before ; but also that one Bishop is sufficient 
for the regular ordination of another Bishop, which is opposed to 
every principle of Episcopal government, as well as to the estab-* 
lished canons, so far as I know, of every Church on earth. 

Finally, it has been urged by some, against this instance of 
Presbyterian ordination, that the word here translated Presbytery, 
signifies the ojice conferred, and not the body of ministers who 
conferred it. Though this construction of the passage has been 
adopted by some respectable names,* it is so absurd and unnatural, 

* Among those names, that of the great and venerable Calvin appears, 
who, when he wrote his Institutes^ adopted this unnatural sense, and 
expressed himself in the following terms — " Quod de impositione ma- 
" nuum Preshyterii dicitur, non ita accipio quasi Paulus de seniorum 
*' collegio loquatur ,- sed hoc nomine ordinaiionem ipsam intelligo." Instit. 
lib- iv. cap. 3. sect. 16. Such an interpretation of a plain passage of 
scripture, even from so great a man, deserves little regard. But Calvin^ 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE, 35 

and so totally inconsistent with every rational principle of inter- 
pretation, that it scarcely deserves a serious refutation. Let us see 
how the text will read with this meaning attached to the word in 
question. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which mas given 
thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of thine office. 
If this be not nonsense, it is difficult to say what deserves that 
name. But suppose we make a monstrous inversion of the whole 
passage as no rule of grammar will justify, and read it thus — 
Neglect not the gift of the Presbyterate which is in thee, which 
was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands. It will 
then follow, that the office conferred upon Timothy was the 
Presbyterate, or the office of Presbyter ; but this, while it entirely 
coincides with the Presbyterian doctrine, will prove fatal to the 
Episcopal scheme, which constantly takes for granted that Timothy 
was not a mere Presbyter, but a diocesan Bishop. 

The last instance that I shall mention of ordination performed 
by Presbyters, is that of Paul and Barnabas, who, after having 
been regularly set apart to the work of the ministry themselves, 
proceeded through the cities of Lystra, Iconium, ^c. And luhen 
they had ordained them Elders in every Church, and had prayed 
with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on luhom they had 
believed. Our adversaries will perhaps say, that Paul alone per- 
formed these ordinations in his apostolic or episcopal character; 
and that Barnabas only laid on hands to express his approbation 
of what Paul did. But the inspired writer, as usual, speaks a 
different language. He declares that they, both of them, ordained. 
Perhaps it will be said, that Barnabas was himself an Apostle, as 
he is so styled. Acts xiv. 14. and that he joined with Paul in or- 
daining Presbyters, in virtue of this superior character. We all 
know that he was not one of the Apostles, strictly so called, and, 
of course, that none of that pre-eminence which belonged to their 
character can be claimed for him. The word Apostle signifies 

soon afterwards, when he came to write his Commentary, and when his 
judgment was more mature, gave a very different opinion. *' Preshy- 
** ierium.] Qui hie colledivum nonien esse putanit pro collegio Presbyiero- 
*• rum positum, rede sentiunt meojudicio." Comment, in loc. The truth 
is, the word Preshyterium is borrowed from the Synagogue, and was in 
familiar use to express the bench of Elders or Presbyters, ever found in 
the Synagogue system. 



36 LfJTTER II. 

simply a Messenger^ a person sent. It was in use among the 
Greeks, and also among the Jews, before the time of Christ. The 
Jewish Apostles were assistants to the High Priest in discussing 
questions of the law ; and were sometimes employed in inferior 
and secular duties. Barronii Annales, An. 32. Accordingly, be- 
sides the twelve apostles appointed by Christ himself, there were, 
in the primitive Churches, apostles, or messengers, chosen either 
by the twelve, or by the Churches themselves, to go to distant 
places, on special services. In this vague and general sense, the 
word apostle is repeatedly used in Scripture. In this sense 
Barnabas and Ejpaphrodittts are called Apostles. In this sense 
John the Baptist is called an apostle by Tertullian. And in the 
same sense this name is applied by early Christian writers to the 
seventy disciples, and to those who propagated the Gospel long 
after the apostolic age. From this name, then, as applied to 
BarnahaSy no pre-eminence of character can be inferred.* Besides, 
the supposition that he bore an ecclesiastical rank above that of 
presbyter, is effectually refuted by the fact that he was himself 
ordained by ih^ presbyters of Antioch. As a Presbyter, therefore, 
he ordained others 5 and the only rational construction that can be 
given to the passage, renders it a plain precedent for Presbyterian 
ordination. 

IV. A fourth source of direct proof in favour of the Presbyterian 
plan of Church Government, is found in the model of the Jewish 
Synagogue, and in the abundant evidence which the Scriptures 
afford, that the Christian Church was formed after the same 
model. 

At Jerusalem alone, where the Temple stood, were sacrifices 
offered, and the Mosaic rites observed. But in almost every town 
and village in Judea, Synagogues were erected, like parish Churches 
of modern times, for prayer and praise, for reading and expounding 
the Scriptures. The Temple worship, as will be afterwards shown, 
was, throughout, typical and ceremonial, and of course was done 
away by the coming of Christ. But the *S7/ncr^o^?/e worship was 

* The translators of our Bible very clearly recognize this distinction 
between the appropriate and the general sense of the word Apostle. 
Thus in 2 Cor. viii. 23, they render the phrase efrroToKoi iKKXHs-mv^ the 
messengers of the Churches. And in Philip, ii. 25, they translate the word 
KTToroxoc as applied to Epaphroditus, messenger. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 37 

altogether of a different nature. It was that part of the organized 
religious establishment of the Old Testament Church, which, like 
the decalogue, was purely moral and spiritual, or at least chiefly 
so; and, therefore, in its leading characters, proper to be adopted 
under any dispensation. Accordingly we find that our Lord him- 
self frequented the Synagogues, and taught in them; and that the 
apostles, and other Christian [ministers in their time, did the same. 
It is well known, also, that in the city of Jerusalem^ where the 
Gospel first began to be preached, after the resurrection of Christ, 
and where the New Testament Church was first organized, there 
were, if we may believe the best writers, several hundred 
Synagogues. It is equally certain that the first converts to 
Christianity were Jews ; that they came into the Christian Church 
with all the feelings and habits of their former connexions, and 
mode of worship strongly prevalent; and that they gave the 
apostles much trouble by their prejudices in favour of old 
establishments, and against innovation. It was probable, therefore, 
beforehand, that, under these circumstances, the apostles, who 
went so far as to admit circumcision, in particular cases, for the 
sake of keeping peace with some of the first converts, would make 
as little change, in converting Synagogues into Christian Churches, 
as was consistent with the spirituality of the New dispensation. To 
retain the ceremonial worship of the Temple, they could not 
possibly consent. To join the Priests in offering up sacrifices, 
when the great Sacrifice had been already offered up once for all; 
to attend on the typical entrance of the High Priest, once a year, 
with the blood of the sacrifice, into the Holy of Holies^ while they 
were, at the same time, teaching that all these things were done 
away, and that the great High Priest of our profession had finally 
entered into the holiest of all, even into heaven for us ; would 
have been an inconsistency not to be admitted. But no such 
inconsistency could be charged against a general conformity to the 
Synagogue model. And, therefore, as might have been expected, 
we find that this conformity was actually adopted. This will 
appear abundantly evident to every impartial inquirer, by attend- 
ing to the following considerations. 

1. The words Synagogue and Church have the same significa- 
tion. They both signify an Assembly or Congregation of people 
convened for the worship of God ; and they both signify, at the 



38 LETTER II. 

same time, the place in which the assembly is convened. This 
community of signification, indeed, is so remarkable, that in the 
Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for 
expressing an Assemhhj, is thirty-seven times rendered Synagogue 
(2uva;k'wy7] ) and seventy times translated Church, (ExxXTjCia), the 
precise word employed in the New Testament to express a 
Christian assembly. In fact, in one instance, a Christian congre- 
gation is by an inspired writer denominated a Synagogue. The 
Apostle James snys— My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord 
Jesus Christ the Lord of glory, jcith respect of persons. For if 
there come into your assembly, (in the original your Synagogue) 
a man with a gold ring,8ic. I am aware that this coincidence in 
the meaning of these words is not absolutely conclusive; but it is 
one among the numerous concurring facts which prove that our 
Lord and his Apostles adopted that language which was familiar 
to the Jews, and to all who were acquainted with their Scriptures ; 
and especially to those who frequented the Synagogue service. 

2. The mode of worship adopted in the Christian Church by 
the Apostles, was substantially the same with that which had been 
long practised in the Synagogue. In the Synagogue, as we learn 
from Maimonides, and others, divine service was begun by the 
solemn reading of a portion of Scripture, by a person appointed for 
that service ; to this succeeded an exhortation or sermon, by the 
Ruler of the Synagogue, or Bishop, whose office will be hereafter 
noticed. The sermon being finished, solemn prayers were offered 
up, by the same ruler, at the end of which the people said. Amen- 
Now, if we examine the New Testament, and those writings of 
the primitive Fathers, whose authenticity has never been 
questioned, we shall find, not only a striking similarity, but r.lmost 
a perfect coincidence, in the mode of conducting the worship of 
Christian assemblies. That the ministers of the Christian Church, 
in like manner, made a practice, in their religious assemblies, of 
reading the Scriptures, delivering discourses and offering up solemn 
prayer, at the close of which the people gave their assent, by 
saying. Amen, is expressly stated in Scripture. And when Justin 
Martyr gives an account of the Christian worship, in his day, it is 
in the following terms— '* Upon the day called Sunday, all the 
" Christians, whether in town or country, assemble in the same 
" place, wherein the commentaries of the Apostles, and the writings 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 39 

<* of the Prophets, are read, as long as the time will permit. Then 
" the reader sitting down, the President of the assembly stands up 
" and delivers a sermon instructing and exhorting to the imitation 
" of that which is comely. After this is ended, we all stand up to 
" prayers : prayers being ended, the bread, wine, and water, are 
" all brought forth ; then the President again praying and praising 
" according to his ability, the people testify their assent by saying, 
*'Amen." Here we see no material difference between the 
Synagogue and Christian worship, excepting the introduction of 
the Lord^s Supper into the latter. 

3. The titles given to the officers of the Synagogue were trans- 
ferred to the officers of the Christian Church. In every Synagogue, 
as those who are most profoundly learned in Jewish Antiquities 
tell us, there were a BisJiop, a bench of Elders^ and Deacons. The 
first named of these officers was called indifferently, Minister, 
Bishop, Pastor, Presbyter, and Angel of the Church*. The 
presbyters or Elders in each Synagogue, according to some 
writers, were three, and, according to others, more numerous. And 
the Bishop was called a presbyter, because he sat with the 
presbyters in council, and was associated with them in authority. 
It is remarkable that all these titles were adopted in the organiza- 
tion of the Christian Church, as will appear, on the slighest perusal 
of the New Testament. And it is still more remarkable that not 
only the same variety, but also precisely the same interchange of 
titles, in the case of the principal officer of the Synagogue, was 
retained by the Apostles in speaking of the Pastors of Christian 
congregations. 

4. Not only the titles of officers, but also their characters, 
duties, and powers, in substance, were transferred from the 
Synagogue to the Christian Church. The Bishop or pastor who 
presided in each Synagogue, directed the reading of the Law ; 
expounded it when read ; offered up public prayers ; and, in short, 
took the lead in conducting the public service of the Synagogue. 
This description applies with remarkable exactness to the duties 
and powers of the Christian Bishop. The bench o( Elders in the 

* Maimonides, the celebrated Jewish Rabbi, who lived in the 12th 
century, in his learned work, Be Sanhed. cap. 4. decribes the Bishop of 
the Synagogue, as " the Presbyter who laboured in the word and 
doctrine." 



40 LETTER II. 

Synagogue had entrusted to them the general powers of government 
and discipline ; and in like manner, the Elders or presbyters^ in 
the Christian Church are directed to rule the flock, and formal 
directions are given them, for maintaining the purity of faith and 
practice. The bench of Elders, in the Synagogue, appears to 
have been made up of two classes ; of those who both taught and 
ruled, and those who, in fact, whatever their authority might have 
been, were employed only in ruling. And accordingly, in the 
Christian Church, we read of Elders who labour in the word and 
doctrine, as well as rule ; and of other Elders who rule only. In 
the Synagogue the office of the Deacons was to collect and distri- 
bute alms to the poor. In conformity with which, the Deacons of 
the Christian Church are represented, in the si^th chapter of the 
Acts of the Apostles, as appointed for the purpose of ministering 
to the poor, and serving tables. 

5. Finally, the mode of ordaining o^cevs in the Synagogue was 
transferred to the Christian Church. In the introduction of men 
to the ceremonial priesthood of the Jews, or into the offices per- 
taining to the Temple service, there was no such thing, strictly 
speaking, as ordination. Both the Priests and Levites came to 
their respective offices by inheritance, and were inducted or 
installed, simply by being brought before the Sanhedrim, and 
receiving the approbation of that body. But, in the Synagogue 
service, the officers were solemnly elected, and ordained by the 
imposition of hands. Every presbyter, who had himself been 
regularly ordained, was authorized to act in the ordination of other 
Presbyters : and to make a valid ordination in the Synagogue, it 
was necessary that three ordainers should be present, and take part 
in the transaction. In like manner, we learn from the New Testa- 
ment, that in Apostolic times, as well as ever since, the ministers 
of the Christian Church were ordained by the imposition of hands; 
that Presbyters, as well as the Apostles themselves, were empowered 
to ordain ; and that in the first ordination of ministers of the 
Gospel recorded by the inspired writers, there were always a 
plurality of ordainers present, and engaged in the solemnity. 

Thus I have given you a very brief sketch of the evidence that 
Christian Churches were organized by the Apostles, after the 
model of the Jewish Synagogues. I have shown that the mode of 
worship adopted in the Church, the titles of her officers, their 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 41 

pmoerSf duties, and mode of ordination, were all copied from the 
Syn?igogue. This evidence might be pursued much further, did 
the limits which I have prescribed to myself admit of details. It 
might easily be shown, that m all those respects in which the 
service of the Synagogue differed from that of the Temple, the 
Christian Church followed the former. The Temple service was 
confined to Jerusalem; the Synagogue worship might exist, and did 
exist wherever there was a sufficient number of Jew$ to form a 
congregation. The temple service was restricted with regard to 
the vestments of its ofiScers ; while in the Synagogue there was 
little or no regulation on this subject. And, finally, it is remarkable, 
that the mode in which the Bishop and Elders of each Synagogue 
were seated during the public service, was exactly copied into the 
Christian assemblies. With regard to these and many other 
particulars which might be mentioned, the Christian Churches in 
piimitive times, it is well known, departed from the ceremonial 
splendour of the Temple, and followed the simplicity of the 
Synagogue. In fact, there is ample proof, that the similarity 
between the primitive Christian Churches, and the Jewish Syna- 
gogues was so great, that they were often considered and 
represented by the persecuting Pagans as the same. 

In support of the foregoing statements, it would be easy to pro- 
duce authorities of the highest character. The general fact, that 
the Christian church was organized by the inspired apostles, not 
on the plan of the Temple service, but after the Synagogue model, 
is amply shown, by the celebrated John Selden, in his work, De 
Synedriis; by Dr. Liglitfoot, a learned Episcopal divine, in his 
Horce Hebraicce ; by the very learned Grotius, in several parts 
of his Commentary ; by Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Stillingjleet , in 
hislrenicum; and, above all, by Vitringa, in his profound and 
able work, De Synagoga Vetere — to which the author has givea 
this bold tide — " Three books on the ancient Synagogue; in which 
it is demonstrated, that the form of government, and of the minis- 
try in the Synagogue was transferred to the Christian Church." If 
there be any points concerning the history and polity of the 
Church, which may be considered as indubitably established, this, 
unquestionably, is among the number. Out of many more modern 
writers, who concur in the same testimony, I shall content myself 
with three, whose opinion no adequate judge will disregard. 
F 



42 LETTER II. 

The first is the celebrated Augustus Neander, Professor in the 
University of Berlin, and generally considered as, perhaps, more 
profoundly skilled in Ecclesiastical History, than any other man 
now living. He is, moreover, a minister of the Lutheran Church, 
and, of course, has no sectarian spirit to gratify in vindicating 
Presbyterianism. After showing at some length that the govern- 
ment of the primitive Church was not monarchical or lordly, but 
dictated throughout by a spirit of mutual love, counsel, and prayer, 
he goes on to express himself thus — " We may suppose that where 
" any thing could be found in the way of Church forms which was 
*' consistent with this spirit, it would be willingly appropriated by 
" the Christian community. Now there happened to be in the 
" Jewish Synagogue a system of government of this nature, not 
" monarchical, but rather aristocratical, (or a government of the 
" most venerable and excellent. A council of Elders, tlD^Jp] 
" 'ff'gso'/^uTS^oi, who conducted all the affairs of that body. It seemed 
" most natural that Christianity, developing itself from the Jewish 
" religion, should take this form of government. This form must also 
" have appeared natural and appropriate to the Roman citizens, 
" since their nation had, from the earliest times, been, to some 
" extent, under the control of a senate, composed of seniors or 
" elders. AVhen the Church was placed under a Council of Elders, 
" they did not always happen to be the oldest in reference to 
" years; but age here, was, as in the Latin Senalus, and the 
" Greek ys^ovdia, expressive of worth or merit. Besides the common 
" name of these overseers of the Church, to wit, it ^s(f^vT£^oi, there 
" were many other names given, according the peculiar situation 
" occupied by the individual, or rather his pecuhar field of labour ; 
" as 'KoiiJ^svsg, shepherds, yiyovixsvoi, leaders, "r^ostfrwrsg rcjv atf£X(pwv, 
" rulers of the brethren, and scrjjo'o'Ti'o;, overseers.* 

Of the same purport, is the judgment of the celebrated German 
Commentator, Professor Kuinoel, of Leipsic, as exhibited in his 
Commentary on the 20th chapter, and 28th verse, of the Acts of 
Apostles. After showing conclusively that the very same persons, 
who in the New Testament are called Bishops, and Shepherds, 
are also called presbyters, which he says, " some have rashly 
" denied, dreaming of a difference between Bishops and Presbyters 

* Klrcbengeschichte, p. 283— 28 ^ 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 43 

" in the primitive Church ;" he goes on to say, that the Christians 
in the time of the Apostles, established in the Church a form 
of government and discipline similar to what prevailed in the 
Jewish Synagogue. It was the duty, he says, of the rulers of the 
Synagogue to preserve discipline, superintend the external concerns 
of the respective societies over which they were placed, and also 
to teach and explain the law. In the same manner it was the duty 
of the bishops or presbyters to superintend the government of the 
Church, and to teach the doctrines of the Christian religion. They 
were both governors and teachers. The rulers of the Synagogues 
were confined to particular societies, and so were the first bishops 
or presbyters. No one had any control, except in the single society 
over which he had been appointed. 

Rosenmullerj a far famed critic and commentator, also of 
Germany, delivers, with great confidence, a^similar opinion, with 
respect to the conformity of the order of the primitive church to 
the model of the Synagogue. And asserts, with equal confidence, 
that presbyters and bishops, in the time of the apostles, were the 
same; but that afterwards, bestowing the title of bishop upon one, 
by way of eminence, was brought in by the custom of the 
Church.* 

Unless I deceive myself, I have now established the four 
positions which were stated at the beginning of this letter, viz. 
That the scriptures contain but one commission for the Gospel 
ministry, and that there is no evidence of the powers conveyed by 
this commission being afterwards divided between different orders 
of ministers: — That the words bishop and presbyternre uniformly 
used in the New Testament as convertible titles for the same office : 
- — that the same character and powers are also, in the sacred 
writings, ascribed interchangeably to Bishops and presbyters, thus 
plainly establishing their identity of order as well as of name : — 
And that the Christian Church was organized by the Apostles, 
after the model of the Jewish Synagogue, which was undeniably 
Presbyterian in its form.! 

These positions, thus established, decide the controversy. Such 

* D. J. G. Rosenmulleri. Scholia N. T. in Ada Aposiol. vi. 3. xi. 30. xiii. 
1. XX. 17. 28.— In Epist. 1 ad Tim. v. 17. 

f See the subject of the Jewish Synagogue farther treated in Letter 
III. of the second series, included in this volume. 



44 LETTER II. 

a concurrence o( language and af facts in support of the doctrine 
of ministerial parity, is at once remarkable and conclusive. I 
mean conclusive as to the simple fact, that this was the system 
adopted in the Apostle's days. With respect to the question, how 
far the apostolic model of Church order is unalterably binding in 
all ages, in all nations, and under all states of society, it is wholly 
a different inquiry. On this point men equally pious and learned 
have entertained different opinions. My own opinion on the 
subject has been expressed in a former letter. But I see not how 
any one can peruse the New Testament, with an impartial mind, 
without perceiving that the Presbyterian form of Church govern- 
ment is there distinctly pourtrayed. This is the " truly primitive 
and apostolic form." And the more closely vve adhere to this form, 
the more we testify our respect for that system which was framed 
by inspired men, sanctioned by miraculous powers, and made 
pre-eminently instrumental, in the midst of a frowning and hostile 
world, in building up the Church in holiness, through faith, unto 
salvation. 



( 45 ) 



LETTER III. 

THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM SCRIPTURE IN FAVOUR OF DIOCESAN 
EPISCOPACY, STATED AND EXAMINED. 

CHRISTIAxV BRETHREN, 

You have seen what ihe Scriptures declare in support of our 
doctrine of the Christian Ministry. I might safely rest the cause 
on this testimony. But as it is my wish to do full justice to our 
opponents, and not to overlook or suppress a single plea urged by 
them, which has the most distant appearance of plausibility, I will 
now proceed, with all the candour I can exercise, to examine the 
principal arguments in favour of their system, which they suppose 
are to be found in the word of God. 

In examining these arguments, I must again request you to keep 
steadily in view the doctrine for which our Episcopal brethren 
contend, and the nature of that proof which it is incumbent on 
them to adduce. They appeal to Scripture to prove that Bishops 
are an order of Clergy superior to Presbyters ; that their superi- 
ority rests on the appointment of Christ ; and that with this 
superioi order alone, are deposited all the treasures of ministerial 
authority and succession. To support such a claim, we demand 
express warrant. We require those who make the appeal, to 
produce passages of Scripture which contain direct precept, plain 
undoubted example, or at least some established principle, from 
which their conclusion necessarily flows. On a subject so funda- 
mental as they represent thhs to be, we cannot be contented with 
gratuitous assumptions, or ingenious analogies, which have nothing 
to support them but human authority. We must have a warrant, 
decided and clear; a warrant which would be indubitable and 
satisfactory, if all books, excepting the Bible, were banished from 
the Church. Let us see whether our claimaints are prepared with 
testimony of this kind. 

I. The first argument urged by the friends of prelacy is, " That, 
*^ as the mosaic economy was intended to prefigure the Gospel 



46 LETTER JIf. 

" dispensation, we may reasonably suppose the Christian ministry 
" to be modelled after the Jeivish Priesthood ; and that, as 
" there were, in the Temple service, an High Priest, Priests, and 
" Levites, so we may consider it as agreeable to the will of Christ, 
" that there should be the corresponding orders o( Bishops, Priests, 
" and Deacons, in the New Testament Church." 

After the ample proof adduced in the foregoing Letter, that the 
Christian Church was organized by the Apostles, not after the 
model of the Temple, but of the Synagogue service, I might with 
propriety dismiss this argument, as sufficiently refuted by the 
establishment of that fact. But as much stress has been laid upon 
the argument in question, and as some cautious inquirers may wish 
to see it further discussed, let us proceed to a more particular 
examination of its merits. 

You will observe the form of this argument. It may " reasona- 
bly be supposed" that such a correspondence of orders should exist. 
But why " suppose" it ? Does the Word of God, the great Charter 
of the Christian Church, say that this is the case? Is there a single 
passage to be found in the sacred volume, which asserts, or gives 
the least hint, that such a likeness or analogy either does, or ought 
to exist ? I will venture to say, there is not. I have met, indeed, 
with much animated declamation in favour of this analogy, urging 
it as a " supposable" thing — as a " reasonable " thing, &c. &;c. 
but I have never yet heard of a single passage of scripture, which 
is even pretended to teach the doctrine in question. For the gene- 
ral position, that many of the Old Testament institutions had a 
reference to, and were intended to prefigure New Testament 
blessings, it will be instantly seen by every discerning reader, is 
nothing to the purpose. 

But this is not all. There is not only nothing to be found in 
Scripture which bears the least appearance of support to this ar- 
gument ; but there is much to be found which contradicts and 
destroys it. It is impossible to read the New Testament without 
perceiving, that the Jewish Priesthood was atypical and temporary 
institution, which had both its accomplishment and its termination 
in Christ. This is taught in passages loo numerous to be quoted ; 
but, more particularly, at great length, and v/ith irresistible force 
of argument, in the Epistle to the Hebrcws^^ in which the sacred 

* See especially the vli. viii. ix. and x. chapters. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 47 

writer declares, that since Christ the substance is come, the types 
which prefigured him are done away ; that the Levitical priesthood 
was chiefly employed in offering sacrifices, and attending on other 
ceremonial observances of the typical economy, for which there 
is no place since the great Sacrifice was offered up once for all; 
and that Christ Jesus himself is now the great High Priest of our 
profession. Is it not above measure wonderful, that any who have 
the Bible in their hands, and profess to make it the rule of their 
faith, should, in the face of language so explicit and decisive, repre- 
sent any human officer in the Christian Church as standing in 
the' place of the High Priest under the ceremonial dispensation ? 
But it will be asked. Do we deny all connexion between the 
Old and the New Testament dispensations ? Do we deny that 
the types and ceremonies of the Mosaic economy, were a shadow 
of good things to come ? By no means. We warmly contend for 
this connexion. We maintain, with no less zeal than our oppo- 
nents, that the whole system of typical and figurative observances 
enjoined upon the Jews, was full of important meaning, and had a 
pointed reference to Gospel blessings. We agree, also, that the 
Jewish Priesthood was typical ; but of what ? of a mere human 
Priesthood, to be established under- the New Testament dispensa- 
tion ? So far from this, that the Apostle, in writing to the Hebrews, 
says directly the contrary. He tells us, that, as the sacrifices 
offered by the priests under the law, prefigured the death of Christ, 
and could not with propriety be continued after that event had 
taken place ; so the Levitical Priesthood was a type of that divine 
High Priest, who once offered himself a sacrifice to satisfy offended 
justice, and entered, by his own blood, into the holiest of all, even 
into heaven. If any insist that, because the ministrations under 
the law were a shadow of heavenly things, we must have a priest- 
hood under the Gospel of similar grades and organization; they 
are bound, on the same principle, to carry the parallel through, 
and to maintain the continuance of sacrifices, and of many other 
things connected with the priestly office ; and I may venture to 
affirm, that they will find it quite as easy to make the scriptures 
speak in favour of the latter as of the former. 

Accordingly the words Priest and Priesthood are never, in one 
instance, in the New Testament, applied to the ministers of the 



48 LETTER III. 

Christian Church, as such.* Episcopalians appear to be particu- 
larly fond of this language. It is frequently introduced into their 
public forms, and no less frequently used by their standard writers. 
But they employ it without the smallhst countenance from scrip- 
ture. This is the decided opinion of eminent Episcopal divines. 
" It is a common mistake," says Dr, (afterwards Bishop) SiilHng- 
fleet, " to tiiink that the ministers of the Gospel succeed byway of 
" correspondence and analogy to the priests under the law; which 
" mistake halh been the foundation and original of many errors. 
" For when, in the primitive Church, the name of Priests came to 
" be attributed to Gospel ministers, from a fair compliance only, 
" (as was then thought) of the Christians, to the name used both 
"among Jews and Gentiles; in process of time corruptions in- 
" creasing in the Church, those names that were used by Chris- 
" tians, by way of analogy and accommodation, brought in the 
" things themselves principally intended by those names. So by 
" the metaphorical names of Priests and Altars^ at last came up 
" the sacrifice of the Mass; without which they thought the names 
" of Priest and Altar were insignificant." — Irenicum. p. ii. chap, 
vi. It is also well known that Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop 
Ridley, and several other eminently pious reformers of the 
Church of England, made zealous opposition to the use of the 
word Altar, and the whole system of phraseology connected 
with it, as a Popish affectation of conformity the Temple service 

* I am not ignorant that some advocates for this language have con- 
tended, that as the word Priest is evidently a corruption of the word 
Presbyter ; and as the latter is certainly applied to New Testament 
ministers, the former may be considered as having a kind of scriptural 
warrant. But this conclusion is founded on a quibble. In the original 
Hebrew of the Old Testament scriptures, the sacred office of one who 
ministered in the Temple service, is expressed by a word, which, in the 
Septuagint, is always rendered 'hptv;. This was the Old Testament word 
for a Leviiical Priest. Now this word is never once used in the New 
Testament to designate a minister of the Christian Church. And accord- 
ingly, the translators of our English Bible, faithful to the distinction 
which they observed to be uniformly kept up in the sacred language, 
between the ministers of the Temple and those of the Church; uniformly 
call the former Priests, and their office the priesthood; while they as 
uniformly avoid applying these names to the latter, but call them. 
Elders, Bishops, Pastors, 8tc. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 49 

of the Jews; as utterly unsupported by scripture j and as highly 
mischievous in its tendency. 

No less opposed to this principle is the opinion of Dr. Haweis, 
an Episcopal Divine, expressed in his Ecclesiastical History. 
" If, says he, the unfounded idea, that Bishops, Priests, and Dea- 
" cons, were to succeed to the High Priest, Priests, and Levites, 
"were true, we must surely have found some intimation of it in 
" the Epistle to the Hebrews, That men of research," he adds, 
" should broach such puerilities is surprising." 

Dr. Mosheirrif* in his account of the corruptions which began 
to creep into the Church, in the second century ^ makes the follow- 
ing remarks. " The Christian Doctors had the good fortune to 
" persuade the people, that the ministers of the Christian Church 
" succeeded to the character, rights, and privileges of the Jewish 
^^ priesthood ; and this persuasion was a new source both ofhon- 
" ours and profits to the sacred order. This notion was propa- 
" gated with industry sometime after the reign of Adrian^ when 
" the second destruction oi Jerusalem had extinguished among the 
" Jews all hopes of seeing their government restored to its former 
" lustre, and their country arising out of ruins. And accordingly 
" the Bishops considered themselves as invested with a rank and 
" character similar to those of the High Priest among the Jew*, 
" while the Presbyters represented the Priests, and the Deacons 
" the Levites. It is, indeed, highly probable, that they who first 
" introduced this absurd comparison of offices so entirely distinct, 
" did it rather through ignorance and error, than through artifice 
" or design. The notion, however, once introduced, produced its 
" natural effects ; and these effects were pernicious.'' 

But admitting, for a moment, that the Levitical priesthood is a 
proper model for the Christian Ministry; what is the consequence ? 
It follows inevitably, that as there was but o/ie High Priest over 
the Jewish Church, so there ought to be but one Bishop over the 
the Christian Church. So far, then, as the argument has any 

• It is generally known that Dr. Mosheim was a Lutheran divine, and 
one of the most learned men of the 18th century. Of the work from 
which this quotation is made, Bishop Warhurion expressed himself in 
the following terms—** Moshdm's Compendium is exceUent^the method 
*' admirable — in short ^ it is the only one deserving the name of an ecclesiuB- 
** tieal history," 
G 



50 LETTER III. 

force, it goes to the establishment, not of diocesan episcopacy ^ but 
of a Fope, as the sole vicar of Jesus Christ upon earth and as the 
proper head of the Church. In fact, the whole argument is bor- 
rowed from the Papists,* who have made the only rational and 
Ugiiimate use of it: and indeed if the general principle be admit- 
ted, 1 see not how it is possible, in any consistency with the analogy 
contended for, to stop short of one Universal Bishop. 

It is evident, then, that this fancied analogy between the Leviti- 
cal priesthood, and the Christian ministry, is not only destitute of 
all support from Scripture, but is positively discountenanced and 
precluded by the New Testament; that if admitted, it would serve 
the cause of popery, and not that kind of prelacy for which the 
Church of England, and those of the same sect in this country, 
contend ; and that it is connected with errors, and with a system 
of language directly calculated to lead men away from the simpli- 
city of the Gospel. 

IT. Another argument urged by Episcopal writers in favour of 
their system, is—" That we actually find three distinct orders of 
" Gospel ministers appointed by Christ, or under his authority, 
" viz. Apostles, the Seventy Disciples, and Deacons ; and that 
" these correspond with the diocesan Bishops, the Presbyters, and 
**the Deacons of their Church." 

This argument may appear plausible to those who have looked 

• I am aware that hints of the least affinity between Episcopacy and 
Popery, are highly offensive to the friends of the former, and have been 
indignantly repelled. I take no pleasure in giving offence; bat as the 
fact in question is certain, however seriously it may be denied; and as 
it is impossible to do justice to the cause of truth without stating it, I 
did not feel myself at liberty to withhold it. I have said, that this argu- 
ment is borrowed from the Papists. No one will understand my meaning 
to be, that the argument was not invented or propagated until Popery 
had become full-grown and mature. The contrary is admitted. The 
Papacy had a beginning as well as a completion. It arose so gradually 
that even candid men will always dispute about the principal dates in 
its rise, progress, and establishment. My meaning is, that the artful 
parallel between the Jewish priesthood and the Christian ministry, was 
one of the means early employed by ambitious clergymen to increase 
their power; and has been always used by the Romish Church as one of 
the supports of her superstitious system. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 51 

only at the surface of the subject ; but the slightest examination 
will evince that it is altogether fallacious and nugatory. 

Who were the seventy disciples? They were a set of men sent 
out on the same errand with the twelve Apostles, and, for aught 
that appears, were vested with the same powers. They were both 
commanded to go forth and proclaim, that the kingdom of heaven 
was at hand; they were both endowed with the power of working 
miracles ; and no hint Is given that the former were inferior to the 
latter. (Compare Mntth. x, with Luke x.) The truth is, the first 
commission even of the twelve Apostles was limited and temporary. 
They were directed not to go into the way of the Gentiles^ hut 
only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel This commission 
terminated at the death of Christ ; and was, after his resurrection, 
formally renewed, and made unlimited both with respect to time 
and place. But the Seventy Disciples had no such renewal and 
extension of their commission. They are mentioned but once in 
the history of our Lord's ministry by the Evangelists ; and after 
his resurrection, not a syllable is said respecting them. Now as 
the Jewish dispensation did not give place to the Christian until 
after the death of Christ, it will inevitably follow that the seventy 
disciples were never, strictly speaking, ministers of the Christian 
Church at all ; but only temporary missionaries, and that under 
the Old Testament dispensation. 

The force of this reasoning can only be evaded by supposing, 
that the first commission given to the seventy disciples was 
unlimited both with respect to its duration and objects. If this 
were so, then they were superior to the twelve Apostles, whose 
first commission is acknowledge to have been limited and tempo- 
rary. But if this were the case, what becomes of the correspondence 
between their office, and that of Presbyters, whom Episcopalians 
constantly represent as inferior to Bishops? On the other hand, if 
the commission of the seventy were temporary, and not afterwards 
renewed, then it will follow, that when our Lord ascended to 
heaven, he left but one order of ministers in his Church, which is 
precisely the fact for which Presbyterians contend. Nay, if the 
commission of the seventy were even allowed to be unlimited as to 
time, yet it was obviously confined to preaching the Gospel among 
Jews, and, of consequence, has nothing to do with us, who are 
of the Gentiles. So that whether their commission were permanent 



52 LETTER 111. 

or temporary, it affords no aid to the argument for prelacy, but 
rather opposes and subverts it. Until Episcopalians prove, not 
only that the seventy Disciples were sent on an inferior ministry, 
and were vested with inferior powers to those of the twelve; but 
also that their commission, as well as that of the twelve, was 
renewed; and that their Master left them in office when he 
ascended to heaven — until they prove both these, which they never 
have done, nor can do, the attempt to derive any aid from this 
source, in vindicating the doctrine of clerical imparity, is 
altogether vain. 

In support of the foregoing remarks, it is easy to produce high 
Episcopal authority. Dr. Whitby speaks on the subject in the 
following terms. — "Whereas some compare the Bishops to the 
" Apostles, and the seventy to the Presbyters of the Church, and 
" thence conclude that divers orders in the ministry were instituted 
*' by Christ himself, it must be granted that the ancients did believe 
" these two to be divers orders, and that those of the seventy were 
" inferior to the order of the Apostles ; and sometimes they make 
" the comparison here mentioned : — But then it must be also 
'* granted that this comparison will not strictly hold ; for the 
" seventy received not their mission as Presbyters do from Bishops, 
*' but immediately from the Lord Christ, as well as the Apostles; 
" and in their first mission were plainly sent on the same errand, 
" and with th€ same powers."— iVo^es on Luke x. 1. 

Bishop Sage, Si writer still more zealous for diocesan Episcopacy, 
expresses himself on the same subject, in a manner no less decisive. 
*• The Apostles," says he, "got not their commission to be 
'* governors of the Christian Church, till after the resurrection. 
" And no wonder, for this their commission is most observably 
" recorded, John xx. 21, &c. No such thing is any where recorded 
"concerning the seventy. Nothing is more certain than that the 
" commission which is recorded Luke x. did constitute them only 
" temporary missionaries, and that for an errand which could not 
" possibly be more than temporary. That commission contains 
"in its own bosom clear evidences, that it did not instal them in 
" any standing office at all, much less in any standing office in the 
*' Christian Church, which was not yet in being when they got it. 
" Could that commission which is recorded Luke x. any more 
•' constitute the seventy standing officers of the Christian Church, 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 53 

" than the like commission recorded Matthew x. could constitute 
" the Twelve such standing officers ? But it is manifest that the 
<* commission recorded Matthew x. did not constitute the twelve 
" governors of the Christian Church ; otherwise what need of a 
" new commission for that purpose after the resurrection ? 
" Presumable, therefore, it is, that the seventy had no successors, 
" office-bearers in the Christian Church, seeing it is so observable 
•" that they themselves received no commission to be such office- 
^ bearers."* 

And as the seventy disciples were not permanent ministers, 
having ceased to be officers in the Church long before deacons were 
appointed ; so it is equally certain, that deacons are not to be 
considered as an order of clergy at all ; and, of course, their office 
affi)rds no countenance to the notion of different grades among 
ministers of the Gospel. That deacons are not an order of clergy^ 
as our Episcopal brethren make them, and consequently have no 
right, as such, to preach and baptize, is evident, both from the 
account of the original institution of the office, and from the 
subsequent statement of their qualifications, which we find in 
Scripture. The account of the institution of the office of deacon 
is in the following words. Acts vi. 1 — 6, And in those days^ when 
the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmur- 
ing of the Grecians against the Hebrews^ because their widows 
were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called 
the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said. It is not reason 
that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Wherefore, 
brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full 
of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this 
business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and 
to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole 
multitude: and f hey chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of 
the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and 
Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch ; 
whom they set before the Apostles : and, when they had prayed, 
they laid their hands on them. I appeal to every candid reader 
of this passage, whether it is possible to consider these persons as 



• See his Vindication of the Princip. of the Cyprianich Age. Chap. vi. 
Sect. 6 



54 LETTER III. 

commissioned to preach the Gospel ? Is there any thing like it 
mentioned, or hinted at, in the whole account ? Rather, is not the 
contrary plainly expressed ? Do not the Apostles expressly say, 
that desiring to give tiiemselves exclusively to prayer and the 
ministry of the word, they wished to be relieved from the care of 
the poor, and the service of tables? Do they not declare, that 
attending to this secular concern v;ould render it necessary for them 
to leave the tDord of God ? Are not the deacons expressly said to 
be appointed over this secular business? And is it credible, after 
all, that preaching and baptizing should be, either in part or in 
whole, their proper employment ? To suppose this is to consider 
the inspired Apostles of Christ, as speaking and acting with the 
inconsistency of children. No less decisive is the language of the 
Apostle Paul in stating to Timothy the qualifications necessary for 
this office. In describing the proper qualities of a Bishop or Faster, 
the Apostle had, in a preceding verse, represented aptness to teach 
as an essential accomplishment ; but when he proceeds to speak of 
deacons, he gives no hint of any such accomplishment, nor does 
he once, in the remotest manner, allude to public teaching, or 
administering either of the sacraments, as a part of their duty. 

Episcopalians, indeed, tell us, that Philip, one of those who had 
been made a Deacon in Jerusalem, is afterwards represented as 
preaching and baptizing in Samaria. And hence they infer that 
these functions belonged to his office as Deacon. But they forget 
that Philip is expressly called (Actsxxi.)an Evangelist ; an office 
the leading and essential duty of which is preaching the Gospel. 
The truth is, Philip, a short time after being set apart as a deacon, 
was driven from Jerusalem^ by persecution ; and being no longer 
able to fulfil the duties of this office, it is probable that some person 
residing in that ciiy was chosen his successor, and that he was 
advanced to. the higher office of Evangelist, and sent abroad to 
preach the Gospel. As to Stephen^s 6\spu[wg with the opposers 
of the Christian faith, immediately after being appointed a Deacon, 
it is nothing to the purpose. This was not preaching the Gospel. 
In fiict it was nothing more than every private Christian, in every 
age, is bound to do when his faith is attacked. Every tiling, there- 
fore, found in Scripture on this subject, is opposed to Deacons 
being considered as an order of Clergy ; and in favour of their 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 55 

being regarded, as they are in the Presbyterian Church as officers 
whose pecuhar business it is to take care of the poor. 

It is not denied, indeed, that, as in regard to other matters, so 
with respect to tiie Deacon's office, encroachment and corruption 
soon began to appear in the Church j and that he who was origi- 
nally appointed to take care of the poor, and " serve tables," began, 
in some parts of the Christian Church, as early as the tiiird and 
fourth centuries, to be a preacher and haptizer. But we have 
abundant evidence that this was considered, even on the p?rt of at 
least some of those who record the fact, as a departure from the 
primitive model. Origen {Tract. 15 in Matt.) does by no means 
express himself as if he believed preaching and baptizing to be the 
appropriate work of the Deacon. " Those Deacons," says he, 
" who donot manage well the money of the Churches committed 
" to their care, but act a fraudulent part, and dispense it, not 
" according to justice, but for the purpose of enriching themselves ; 
" these act the part of money changers, and keepers of those tables 
" which our Lord overturned." Hilary says, concerning the fourth 
century: " The deacons do not publicly preach." Comment, in 
Ephes. 4. In the Apostolical CojistitutionSf which, though un- 
doubtedly spurious as an apostolical work, may probably be 
referred to the fourth or fifth centuries, it is recorded, (Lz6. 8. 
cap. ult.) " Jt is not lawful for the deacons to baptize, or to 
" administer the Eucharist, or to pronounce the greater orsnjaller 
" benediction." Jerome^ in his letter to Evagrius, calls deacons 
ministers of tables and of loidoics. And Oecumejiius, a learned 
commentator, who lived several centuries after Jerome^ in his com- 
mentary on Jets vi. expresses himself thus — <* The Apostles laid 
" their hands on those who were chosen deacons, not to confer 
" on them that rank which they now hold in the Church, but that 
" they might, with all diligence and attention, distribute the neces- 
" saries of life to widows and orphans.'^ Nothing can be clearer, 
then, from the testimony of Scripture, and of early antiquity, than 
that the deacon's office had, originally, nothing to do with preach- 
ing or baptizing; and that investing him with these powers is an 
unwarrantable departure from the primitive model. 

Of the three orders, then, contended for in this argument, there 
remains but one, viz. the Apostles^ who received a permanent com- 
mission to be ministers of the Gospel, and who, in this character, 



56 LETTER III. 

are to be considered as having successors. The sfventy disciples 
had ceased to exist, as officers in the Church, a considerable time 
before the Deacons were appointed ; and it is trampling upon every 
intimation of Scripture on the subject, to make the latter an order 
of clergy at all. The favourite Episcopal doctrine, therefore, of 
clerical imparity, receives not the least countenance from this 
boasted argument. 

It is impossible not to observe the difficulties to which our 
Episcopal brethren are reduced, in endeavouring to show, on their 
own principles, that three orders of clergy have been maintained 
at every period. Considering the twelve Apostles and tiie seventy 
disciples, as two distinct orders appointed by our Lord before his 
crucifixion, they have thought themselves bound to find a third 
order, during that period. And what expedient do you suppose 
they have adopted to make out their beloved number? Why, 
some of them gravely tell us that Christ himself was one of the or- 
ders of Clergy at that time ! I will not so far insult your under- 
standings. Brethren, as to attempt a refutation of this idea. But 
if this were the case, then, to say nothing of other objections, the 
Apostles stood in the place of Presbyters, which is contrary to 
the Episcopal system. Besides, where will the zealous advocate* 
for the doctrine of three orders find their favourite number, even on 
their own principles, immediately after the ascension of Christ, 
when the Deacons had not been appointed, and when we hear no 
more about the seventy disciples ? 

III. Closely connected with the foregoing argument is another, 
which is urged with great confidence by many episcopal writers. 
It is : " That the apostles, while they lived, held a station in the 
" Church superior to all other ministers ; that Bishops are the 
" proper successors of the apostles ; and that they hold a corres- 
" ponding superiority of character and office." 

If this argument be examined, it will be found to have no other 
force than that which consists in a mere gratuitous assertion of the 
point to be proved. 

The ministry of the Apostles was, in some repp.ctSj extraordinary y 
and of course terminated with their lives. In other respects, it was 
ordinari/y and transmitted to their successors. Considering them 
in the former light, as men distinguished by the extraordinary gifts 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 57 

of the Holy Ghost ; as endowed with immediate inspiration, with 
the knowledge of tongues, with the power of discerning spirits, and 
working miracles, and of conferring that power on others ; and as 
invested with authority to order every thing relating to the Churches 
of Christ, under the unerring guidance of the Spirit of God, until 
the canon of Scripture, the grand charter and directory of the 
Church, should be completed ; considering them in this character, 
the apostles had no successors. They were exalted above all 
bishops. Their character was strictly personal and incommunicable. 
The scriptures give no hint of any class of ministers coming 
after them, to be endowed with a similar character ; and until 
those who claim something like Apostolic pre-eminence produce 
satisfactory testimonials that they possess similar gifts and powers, 
they must excuse us for rejecting their claims. 

Considering the ministry of the apostles in those respects in 
which it was ordinary and perpetual, they had, and still have, 
successors ; and nothing is more easy than to show that these 
successors consist of all those, without exception, who are empow- 
ered to go forth and teach men the way of salvation j baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost ; that is, all regular ministers, who are clothed with authority 
to preach the Gospel and administer sacraments. For it was in 
immediate connexion with the command to perform these ordinary 
functions, that the promise, which is considered as constituting 
the ministerial succession, was given — Lo I am loith you always, 
even unto the end of the world. Could the advocates of episcopacy 
show from Scripture, that the powers possessed by the apostles 
were afterwards divided; that, while one class of ministers 
succeeded them in the ordinary duties of preaching and administer- 
ing sacraments, another class succeeded them in some higher and 
more appropriate duties ; their cause would rest on better ground ; 
but this, as was before observed, can never be proved. There is 
not a syllable in Scripture that looks like such a divided succession ; 
nor has it ever been so much as pretended that a passage is to be 
found which gives a hint of this kind. On the contrary, as has 
been repeatedly before mentioned, the Scriptures uniformly repre- 
sent preaching the Gospel, and administering sacraments, as the 
most important and honourable of all ministerial functions. 

Accordingly, when we ask those who adduce this argument, 
II 



58 LETTER III. 

whence they derive the idea that diocesan bishops peculiarly 
succeed the apostles in their apostolic character, (for this supposition 
alone is to their purpose,) they refer us to no passages of Scripture 
asserting or even hinting it ; but to some vague suggestions, and 
allusions of a few of the early Fathers. Now, on such a subject, 
even if the Fathers were unanimous, we might and ought to hesitate, 
if nothing like what they intimate were to be found in the word of 
God. But it ought to be known and remembered, that the Fathers 
contradict one another, and the same Fathers contradict them- 
selves on this subject. Several of them expressly represent 
presbyters as the successors of the apostles. Among others, 
Ignatius, than whom no Father is more highly esteemed, or more 
frequently quoted as an authority by Episcopalians, generally 
represents presbyters as standing in the place of the apostles. The 
following quotations are from his far-famed Epistles. " The 
" presbyters succeed in the place of the bench of the Apostles.'* 
" In like manner let all reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ, and 
" the bishop as the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of 
" God, and college of the apostles." " Be subject to your presbyters 
" as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope." " Follow the 
" Presbytery as the apostles," &c.* Other quotations from the 
Fathers might easily be adduced, equally pointed and decisive 
against the argument in question; but these are reserved for a 
subsequent letter. 

But siill the advocates of diocesan episcopacy ask : '^ Do not 
" the Apostles, in many passages of the New Testament, mani- 
" festly assert their superiority over other ministers ? Do we not 
" find them exercising jurisdiction over uninspired pastors; direct- 
" ing them how to behave themselves in the house of God; and, 
" in short, authoritatively ordering the conduct of ministers, and 
" the affairs of the Churches? Now, say they, if the Apostles 
" had any successors in the exercise of this general jurisdiction 
" over other ministers, these successors can be no other than our 
" diocesan Bishnpsj who are constituted governors of the inferior 
" clergy ; which is precisely the point for which we contend." 
To this reasoning I answer, the Apostles did possess, and did 

* The testimony of Ignatius will hereafter be noticed. The single 
object of these quotations is to show that he represents the presbyters 
as successors of the apostles. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 59 

exercise the general power of jurisdiction and superintendency 
wiiich has been stated. In the infancy of the Church it was 
necessary that they should do so. Being under the immediate 
guidance of the Holy Ghost, they were to the primitive Churches 
what the New Testament is to us, the only infallible standard. But 
does it follow that ihey must have successors in this paramount 
authority over other ministers, after the sacred canon was com- 
pleted, and the reason of their extraordinary powers had ceased ? 
Besides, let us attend to the consequences to which the Episcopal 
reasoning on this subject will conduct us. The Apostles, it is 
granted, gave authoritative instruction, or, if you please, exercised 
jurisdiction over the Churches and ministers which they had con- 
stituted. Among others, this apostolic authority was exercised 
over Timothy, Titus, and Epaphrodiius, whom all Episcopalians 
consider as diocesan Bishops. In fact it would be difficult to select 
individual ministers over whom apostolic authority and direction 
were more remarkably exercised than over these. Now, we ask 
the advocates of episcopacy. Was this authoritative control over 
these Bishops, the exercise of an ordinary, or of an extraordinary 
power? If they say, of an extraordinary power, then they give 
up the argument ; for, on the same principles, we may and do 
contend, that the whole jurisdiction of the Apostles over other 
ministers of the Gospel, arose from their extraordinary character, 
and the particular situation of the Church, and expired with them. 
If, on the other hand, they say, that this was the exercise of an 
ordinary power, then it must inevitably follow, that there is a 
divine warrant for a permanent order of ministers, in the Christian 
Church, superior to bishops, and invested with authority over 
them; thus making ^bwr instead of Mree orders of clergy. It is 
not possible to avoid one or the other of these conclusions ; and 
they are equally destructive to the episcopal system. 

Accordingly, the whole aigument for the superiority o( Bishops 
drawn from their being considered as the proper and exclusive 
successors of the apostles in their official pre-eminence, has been 
pronounced invalid, and wholly abandoned by some of the most 
distinguished writers of the Church of England. In this list are 
the names of Dr. Barrow, Mr. Dodwell, Bishop Hoadly, and others 
of equal eminence. 

The judgment of the very learned and able Episcopalian, Dr. 



60 LETTER III. 

Barrow is too decisive to pass unnoticed. The following quota- 
tion is from his celebrated treatise on the Pope^s supremacy ; and 
although his main object is to refute the Papists; yet it is remark- 
able that the very same reasoning by which the Popish claim of 
apostolical succession is set aside, is also fatal to a claim substan- 
tially similar, advanced by Protestant high-churchmen. The 
Doctor speaks thus : " The apostolical office, as such, was personal 
" and temporary ; and therefore, according to its nature and design, 
" not successive, nor communicable to others, in perpetual de- 
" scendence from them. It was, as such, in all respects extraor- 
" dinary, conferred in a special manner, designed for special 
" purposes, discharged by special aids, endowed with special 
" privileges, as was needful for the propagation of Christianity, 
" and founding of churches. To that office, it was requisite that 
" the person should have an immediate designation and com- 
" mission from God : that he should be endowed with miraculous 
" gifts and graces, enabling him both to assure his authority, and 
"to execute his office: that he should be able, according to his 
" discretion, to impart spiritual gifts : and that he should govern in 
" an absolute manner, as being guided by infallible assistance, to 
" which he might appeal, &c. — Now such an office, consisting of 
" so many extraordinary privileges and miraculous powers, which 
" were requisite for the foundation of the Church, and the diffusion 
" of Christianity, against the manifold difficulties and disadvantages 
" which it then needs must encounter, was not designed to continue 
" by derivation ; for it contained in it divers things, which appa- 
" rently were not communicated, and which no man without gross 
" imposture and hypocrisy could challenge to himself." P. 79, "fee. 

IV. A fourth argument urged by the advocates of Episcopacy, 
is : " That Timothy and 2'itus were each appointed to the fixed 
" superintendency of a large diocese, the former over EphesuSf the 
" latter over Crete ; that the duties required of them, and the 
" powers vested in them, were evidently superior to those of ordi- 
" nary Presbyters: in a word, that they were no other than proper 
" diocesan BishopsP 

This argument is a cornerstone of the Episcopal fabric, adduced 
with much zeal, and relied on with the utmost confidence, by most 
of the advocates of prelacy. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 61 

It is unfortunate, however, that all the premises from which the 
conclusion is drawn, are assumed, without any satisfactory, or even 
plausible evidence. How does it appear that Timothj and Titus 
were Bishops, in the Episcopal sense of the word ? They are no 
where, in Scripture, called by this name. Timothy, on the con- 
trary, is expressly styled an Evangelist. 2 Tim. iv. 5. And it is 
probable, that Titus, being called to similar duties, bore the same 
character. Now what is meant by an Evangelist ? He was an 
officer, says Eusebius, appointed '^ to lay the foundations of the 
" faith, in barbarous nations, to constitute them pastors, and having 
" committed to them the cultivating of those new plantations, to 
" pass on to other countries and nations.''* No description can 
apply more perfectly to the work assigned to Timothj and Titus, 
as every one who looks into the sacred history must instantly per- 
ceive. They were not settled pastors, but itinerant missionaries. 
They sustained no fixed or permanent relation to the Churches of 
Ephesus or Crete ; and amidst their numerous and almost constant 
travels, were probably as long, and perhaps longer, in other places 
than in these. As for Titus, Dr. Whitby himself acknowledges, 
that "he was only left at Crete to ordain elders in every city, and 
" to set in order the things tliat were wanting ; and that, having 
" done that work, he had done all that was assigned him in that 
*' station; and, therefore, St. Paul sends for him the very next 
" year to Nicopolis. Titus iii. 12." And with respect to Timothy, 
the same learned Episcopal writer also conft^sses, that " there is no 
" satisfactory evidence of his having resided longer at Ephesus, 
" than was necessary to execute a special and temporary mission 
" to the Church in that place." Preface to his Comment, on Titus. 

Some Episcopalians, of slender information, have triumphed, 
because in our common Bibles, at the close of the second epistle to 
Timothy, there is a Postscript, in the following words : The 
second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the jirst bishop of the 
Church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was 

* After quoting- an authority so often referred to by Episcopalians, and 
so high in their estimation as that of Eusebius, I will add, that the word 
Evangelist is still used in the Presbyterian Church, and with the same 
sense attached to it as in the days of Eusebius. Among us, an ordained 
mmister, who has no pastoral charge, and who itinerates to preach the 
gospel in regions which are destitute of it, is called an Evangelist. 



62 LETTER III. 

brought before Nero the second time. And, also, at the close of 
the epistle to Titus, a similar postscript, importing that Titiis was 
the first bishop of Crete. But it is well known that these postscripts 
make no part of the sacred text. It is acknowledged, by all 
learned men, that they were interpolated, by some officious 
transcribers, more than 400 years after the Christian sera. They 
are not to be found in any of the oldest and most authentic copies 
of the original. They are not the same in all the copies in which 
they are found. They were solemnly excluded from the earliest 
English translations ; and, for a long time after their introduction, 
they were generally printed in a different type from the inspired 
text, in order to show that they form no part of the sacred canon. 
Of course, as all Episcopal writers of respectability acknowledge, 
they afford no evidence which deserves the least attention in the 
case before us. 

But if there be no evidence that Timothy and Titus were 
diocesan Bishops, either in the sacred text, or in the spurious 
interpolations, which, by ignorant persons, have been sometimes 
mistaken for it J whence, you will ask, has this notion, so confi- 
dently maintained by episcopal writers, taken its rise ? It seems to 
have been first suggested by Eusehius, in the fourth century, as a 
thing which tradition " reported^' in his day, but of which he 
found no certain record ;* and after him this tradition has been 
servilely copied, and assumed as a fact by a succession of writers. 
Dr. Whitby, notwithstanding all his zeal for episcopacy, speaks on 
the subject in this manner. " The great controversy concerning 
" this, and the epistles to Timothy is, whether Timothy and Titus 
" were indeed made bishops, the one o( Ephesus, and the procon- 
" sular Asia ; the other of Crete. Now of this matter I confess I 
" can find nothing in any writer of the^rs^ three centuries, nor 
" any intimation that they bore that name." And afterwards he 

* Eusebius, in the first chapter of his History, speaking- of the difficulties 
of his undertaking, and of the small assistance he could gain from any 
preceding writers, expresses himself thus: '* Being the first who have 
*' taken in hand this work, we enter on a solitary and untrodden way, 
"praying that God may be our guide, and the power of our Lord and 
•* Saviour our help ; yet we cannot find even the bare footsteps of any 
«' who have trodden this path before us. We find only a fe^ small and 
*' scattered narratives of which we can avail ourselves, &c.'* Again, in 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 63 

adds, generally concerning the whole argument—" T confess that 
** these two instances, absolutely taken, afford us no convincing 
" arguments in favour of a settled diocesan episcopacy, because 
*' there is nothing which proves they did or were to exercise these 
" acts of government rather as bishops than as Evangelists.'' 

But it is still urged, that some of the powers represented in 
Scripture as given to Timothy and Titus clearly indicate a 
superiority of order. Thus Paul besought the former to abide 
still at Ephesus, and gave him directions with regard to the 
selection and ordination of ministers. And he also appointed the 
\atier lo ordain elders in every city of Crete, giving him, at the 
same time, particular instructions as to the manner in which he 
should exercise his ordaining power, and set in order the things 
that were wanting. " Here," say the advocates for episcopacy, " we 
" find in fact the pre-eminent powers of diocesan Bishops vested 
" in these men ; and as long as they possessed the powers of 
" bishops, it is of small moment by what name they were called." 

"the fourth chapter of his third book, he speaks as follows: "That 
"Paul, preaching to the Gentiles, planted the Churches from Jerusalem 
** to Illyricum, is manifest both by his own words, and the testimony of 
** Luke'in the Acts of the Apostles. Also in what provinces Peter preached 
" to those of the circumcision, and delivered the doctrine of the New 
** Testament, appears, most evidently, by the Epistle universally ascribed 
••to him, which he addressed to the Hebrews that were scattered 
** throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. But 
••how many, and what sincere imitators of the apostles, governed the 
** churches planted by them, it is not easy to say, except so far as may 
"be gathered from the words of the apostle himself. Timothy is 
" reported to have been the first Bishop of the Parish of Ephesus, and 
7\7u5ofthe Churches of Crete," he. Language of this kind plainly 
shows that Eusebius had very few and uncertain guides after he left the 
New Testament. He hved in a day when clerical imparity had made 
considerable progress ; and, of course, tradition would be apt to attach 
the same ideas to the character of a Bishop in the apostle's days, as 
actually belonged to it in the fourth century. But still, though the title 
of Bishop meant one thing in the days of Timothy, and quite another in 
the days Eusebius ; he and others thought themselves warranted in 
applying the popular language to those primitive ministers. Let it never 
be forgotten, however, that Episcopalians with one voice admit that the 
title of Bishop is applied in Scripture to the Pastors of particular 
churches. 



64 LETTER III. 

But on this argument several remarks immediately occur, which 
entirely destroy its force. 

Thej^rs^ is, that even if we allow Timothy and Titus to have 
held such a superior ecclesiastical rank, as that for which Episcopa- 
lians contend, still no certain argument can be drawn from their 
case in favour of an established arrangement in the church. That 
they sustained a character in some respects extraordinary^ and 
were called to act on occasions in some respects out of the co/wmo» 
course, none will deny. Are we sure that, in these respects, their 
mission is to be a precedent for us? Because officers of a certain 
character were sent, on a particular occasion, to organize churches, 
and to ordain ministers, in Ephesus and Crete, does it follow, 
upon any principle of legitimate reasoning, that officers of precisely 
the same character are indispensably necessary in all countries and 
in all ages to perform a similar service ? Because the Apostle 
Paul in fact partook with other ministers in several ordinations? 
are we to infer that no ordination was valid, while the apostles 
lived, unless one of them was present, and participated in the 
transaction ? By no means. We know that the inference would 
be false. For we read that Timothy and Titus, who were certainly 
subordinate to Paul, and who received commands and instructions 
from him as their superior, were sent on an ordaining tour. We 
read that certain Prophets and Teachers, at Antioch, such as 
Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen, who were of a different description 
of ministers from either of the former, still possessed the ordaining 
power; and that Timothy himself was ordained by the laying on 
of the hands of Presbyters. In short, they are four classes of 
of Gospel ministers, ordinary and extraordinary, mentioned in 
the New Testament, viz. Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, and 
Teachers, or Presbyters. These different titles, it is granted on 
all hands, were intended to indicate some diversity of station and 
employment in the Apostolic age. But however they differed 
among themselves with respect to their endowments and qualifica- 
tions, we find that they all possessed alike the power of setting 
apart others to the work of the ministry, and actually ordained. 
Nay, an instance precisely in point occurs in the history of 
the Episcopal Church in the United States. In the consecra- 
tion of the first bishops for that church, the Archbishop of 
Canterbury presided. Yet we all know that the presence and 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 65 

co-operation of the primate were not necessary, either to 
the validity or regularity of the consecration. Three ordinary 
bishops would have done just as well. Yet if some zealous 
hierarchist, a thousand years hence, should insist, that because he 
was present, the consecration could not have taken place without 
him ; the argument would have just as much force as that which we 
are now considering. Yielding the whole fact, then, concerning the 
character of Timothy and Titus, for which our episcopal brethren 
contend, it does not afford the least help to their cause. It no more 
proves that precisely such officers are necessary to the performance 
of every valid ordination, in every subsequent age, than the 
consecration of the first High Priest, under the Old Testament 
dispensation, by Moses, rendered it necessary that every succeeding 
induction of the same officer should be performed by a similar 
person, and with similar ceremonies 5 which we know was neither 
required nor done.* 

But, secondly — We utterly deny that Timothy w;is sent to 
Ephesus, and Titus to Crete, in any such character as our episcopal 
brethren claim for them. We have seen that the fact, if admitted, 
would be useless to their cause. But it is not admitted, and cannot 
be proved. To say, that the very circumstance of being sent to 
ordain ministers, and to organize churches, shows that they acted 
in virtue of a superior episcopal character, every discerning reader 
will perceive is not proof, but merely taking for granted the whole 
point in dispute. In truth, the whole argument, drawn from the 
mission of Timothy and Titus, when carefully analysed, and 
distinctly stated, amounts to this — " None but diocesan bishops, as 
" a superior order of clergy, have a right to ordain ministers, and 
" organize Churches : but Timothy and Titus, were sent to perform 
" services of this kind : therefore Timothy and Titus were diocesan 
" bishops." In this syllogism, the major proposition, viz. that 
which asserts that none but bishops, as a superior order, can ordain, 
is taken for granted. But does not every one see that this is precisely 

* Perhaps it will be objected that this argument proves too much, and 
may be made, by pressing" it a little further, to support the cause of lay- 
ordinations. By no means. For though different descriptions of 
ministers, both ordinary and extraordinary, ordained in the days of the 
apostles, yet we read of no ordination but what was performed by 
ministers of some kind 
I 



66 LETTER III. 

the point to be proved ? Until this fundamental proposition, then, 
be first established, the whole argument is such as all logicians agree 
in stigmatizing as deceptive and worthless. 

Thirdly — We know not that there were any Church officers 
ordained, either at Ei)hesus or Crete*, previous to the mission of 
Timothy and Titus to those Churches, The advocates for Epis- 
copacy, I know, take the liberty of supposing that there were Fres- 
hyters already ordained and residing at both those places, before 
the period in question. And hence they conclude that Presbyters 
were not considered by the Apostle as lawfully vested with the 
power of ordaining, " or else," say they, " he would not have 
" thought it necessary to send superior officers so great a distance, 
" to perform this work." But this supposition is made wholly 
without evidence. The probability is, that there were no such 
Presbyters prior to the arrival of Timothy and Titus : and until 
the friends of Episcopacy prove that there were^ the whole argu- 
ment on which they build so much, falls to the ground. The 
Gospel had, indeed, been preached, and great numbers converted, 
both at Ephesus and Crete, a considerable time before ; but we 
have no evidence that any dcclesiastical organization or appoint- 
ments had, as yet, taken place,f and if so, then it was surely neces- 
sary to send spec/a/ missionaries, to commence ecclesiastical order, 
where every thing was in a rude and unorganized state : If there 
were no Presbyters already ordained and residing in those Churches, 
it is obvious that sending others to perform what was necessary, 
does not afford the slightest presumption against the ordaining 
power of Presbyters. 

• Archbishop Potter, one of the highest authorities among Episco- 
palians, concedes that we have no reason to believe there were any 
ministers ordained at Crete, prior to the mission of Titus to that place, 
See Discourse of Ch. Gov. p. 91, 92, &€. Tliis simple concession, when 
traced to its legitimate consequences, amounts, so far as Titus is con- 
cerned, to a surrender of the whole argument. 

•j- " One quahfication for a Bishop was, that he should not be a novice 
** that is, one newly converted ; time being required to prove men 
"before they could be intrusted with the care of the church: and 
** therefore the apostles used not to ordain ministers in any place 
<* before the second time of their coming thither." Potter's Disc, 
ofCh. Gov. p. 91. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 67 

But, fourthly — Admitting, for the sake of argument, that there 
were Presbyters ordained, and residing, both at Ephesus and Crete, 
previous to the respective missions of Timothy and Titus, still no 
advantage to the Episcopal cause can be derived from this conces- 
sion. We learn from the Epistles directed to these Evangelists, 
that divisions and difficulties existed in both the Churches to which 
they were sent. Among the Christians at Ephesus there had 
crept in ravenous wolves, who annoyed and wasted the flock ; and 
also some who had turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to 
be teachers of the law, without understanding what they said, or 
whereof they affirmed. And, in the church of Crete, it appears, 
that there were many unruly and vain talkers, and deceivers, 
especially they of the circumcision ; who gave heed to Jewish 
fables, and commandments of men that turned from the truth. 
Under these circumstances, the pious and benevolent Faul, who 
had laboured so much in those churches, would naturally feel him- 
self called upon to do something for their relief. But what was to 
be done? He was not able, or he did not think proper, to go him- 
self to direct their affairs. He could not send them copies of that 
sacred charter, with which the churches are now furnished, viz. the 
New Testament, a considerable portion of which was not then in 
existence. The ministers residing there were probably themselves 
involved in the disputes and animosities which prevailed ; and, there- 
fore, could not be considered as suitable persons to compose tumults, 
and to settle differences in which they had taken a part. There 
was no alternative, but to send special missionaries, immediately 
empowered by a person of acknowledged authority, to act in the 
various exigencies which might arise; to curb the unruly; to 
reclaim the wandering ; to repress the ambition of those who 
wished to become teachers, or to thrust themselves into the minis- 
try, without being duly qualified; to select and ordain others, of 
more worthy character ; and, in general, to set in order the affairs 
of those churches. Now, as both Timothy and Titus had been 
recently with the Apostle, when they set out on their respective 
missions, it is not to be supposed that the epistles which we find 
directed to them, were written solely, or even principally, for their 
instruction. It is probable that they were rather intended as 
credentials, \ohQs\\ov»t\ to the churches of £Jp/^es^/s and Crete; 
as means of commanding their respect and obedience to these 



G8 LETTER III. 

missionaries ; and, after answering this occasional purpose, to be 
placed on record in the sacred canon, to serve as a guide to the 
church in every age. Considering the subject in this light, the 
mere ^ac^ of these missionaries being sent to Ephesus and Crete 
does not afford even the shadow of ground for ascribing to them 
the high episcopal powers, of which so much is said. No reason 
that deserves to be called even plausible can be urged, for suppos- 
ing they had any higher character than that oi presbyters. 

A fifth remark, which invalidates the argument under considera- 
tion is this. We know not that either Timothy or Titus, alone, 
ordained a single presbyter, at Ephesus or Crete. The epistles 
giving directions with respect to those churches are, indeed, address- 
ed to the individual ministers whose names they bear. But this 
might have beeH done merely because they were the most con- 
spicuous and able of the ministers called to act in those departments 
of the church. It is evident that some parts of these epistles were 
intended to guide the churches, as well as the ministers to whom 
they were sent. Besides, in all the particular instances of ordina- 
tion which are recorded in the New Testament, we find a plurality 
of ordainers present and officiating. And though we are not 
formally told, that any other ordainers accompanied Timothy and 
Titus, in visiting the churches to which they were respectively sent; 
we cannot undertake to affirm that there were none such. Yet the 
whole force of the episcopal argument depends upon taking for 
granted that each of those missionaries was alone vested with the 
whole ordaining and governing power, in the diocese supposed to 
be assigned him. 

In the sixth place — With respect to Timothy, there is a fact 
which militates strongly against the argument in question. It is 
is this. If he were ever Bishop of Ephesus, it must have been 
when Paul's first epistle to him was written : for it is in this epistle 
alone that the supposed evidence of his episcopal powers is found. 
But this epistle, as the most learned and judicious commentators 
agree, was written from Macedonia, about the year of Christ 58 ; 
a short time before the celebrated interview of Paul with the 
elders of Ephesus, at Miletus. This is the date assigned to it by 
Athanasius and Theodoret, among the ancients ; and by Dr. 
Hammond, the learned Grotius, Dr. Lightfoot, Dr. Benson, Dr. 
Doddridge, Professor Michcelis, and other modern critics of equal 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 69 

reputation. Now if Timothy were constituted Bishop of Ephesits 
at this period, how came the apostle Paul, a short time afterwards, 
in his conference with the elders whom he met at Miletus, to style 
them the Bishops of that Church, and to commit to them its 
government, as we have seen in a former letter ? — Was Timothy, 
after holding this office a few months, so soon displaced ? Or, if he 
still bore the office, is it credible that the apostle should have 
totally forgotten the circumstance ; that he should declare the pres- 
byters of that Cnurch to be its Bishops, and charge them to exe- 
cute episcopal duties; and that, when predicting divisions and 
heresies which were about to arise among them, he should say no- 
thing of any superior officer as their spiritual guide, and bond of 
union? It is not credible. No impartial reader can believe that 
Timothy, at this time, bore any such fixed relation to the Church 
o( Ephesus as that for which the friends of prelacy contend. 

A seventh remark on this argument, also, deserves attention. 
Timothy and Titus are considered by Episcopalians as diocesan 
Bishops; the former of Ephesus, Xhe latter of Crete. But it is evi- 
dent from the New Testament history that neither of these minis- 
ters was long stationary in any one place. They appear to have 
been almost constantly itinerating to preach the Gospel and orga- 
nize Churches. With respect to Timothy, we find him at one 
period with Paul at Philippi and Thessalonica : a little afterwards 
at Athens : then at Thessalonica again. Some years after this, we 
find him successively at Ephesus, Macedonia, and Corinth : then 
returning to Ephesus : soon afterwards re-visiting Corinth and 
Macedonia : then going to Jerusalem : and last of all, travelling to 
Rome, where the sacred history leaves him. In like manner, we 
may trace Titus, in his successive journeys, from Syria to Jerusa- 
lem : thence to Corinth : from Corinth to Macedonia : back again 
to Corinth : thence to the Island of Crete: afterwards to Dalmatia, 
and, as some suppose, back again to Crete. Does this look like a 
fixed episcopal charge? Nothing more unlike it. 

Finally — If Timothy and Titus were diocesan Bishops, then the 
apostles sustained a still higher office. It is evident from the whole 
tenor of Scripture, that the apostolic character was superior to that 
of the Evangelists : and Paul, especially, always addresses Timo- 
thy and Titus in a style of authority. But if this be so, then we 
have, by divine right. Archbishops as well as Bishops; that is, 



70 LETTER HI. 

four orders of clergy, instead of three. I know that the advocates 
of episcopacy disclaim this consequence. They tell us that there 
is no divine warrant for more than three orders ; and that Arch- 
bishops and Metropolitans are only different grades of the same 
order, resting, not on Divine appointment, but human expediency. 
But are they consistent with themselves in saying this ? They are 
not. On the one hand, they contend, that the Apostles held a 
station of superiority and government over all other ministers; and 
this, not on the ground of their extraordinary gifts and circum- 
stances; but in virtue of a power which was ordinary and per- 
petualy and in which they had successors. On the other hand, 
the same persons contend, that Timothy and Titus, though subject 
themselves to the apostles, possessed, in their turn, an episcopal 
superiority and government over the presbyters of Ephesus and 
Crete : and this, not founded on any peculiar occasion or exigency, 
but on essential and permanent principles, and transmitted to 
Bishops in all succeeding ages. Here, then, are two grades of 
Episcopal power ; both equally founded on divine right ; both 
superior to Presbyters, yet unequal to each other; running parallel 
with each other for a number of years before the decease of the 
Apostles; both resting on principles ordinary and perpetual; both 
transmitted to successors ; both essential to the well-being of the 
Church. On this principle Episcopalians are driven to the neces- 
sity of contending for two orders of Bishops, as indispensable in 
the organization of every Church.* If, to avoid this difficulty, 
they grant, either that the authority of the apostles over Timothy 
and Titus was extraordinary ; or that the authority of Timothy 
and Titus over other ministers was so, they instantly surrender 
one of their boasted arguments for a settled prelacy. But a prin- 
ciple which either proves too much, or leads to absurdity, is false, 
and of course inadmissible. 

In short; when the advocates for diocesan episcopacy prove, 
that Timothy and Titus were sent to Ephesus and Cj^ete to remain 
longer, and on a more important errand than to several other 

* We avoid the whole of this difficulty by our doctrine. We hold that 
all the authority over other ministers, with which the apostles and evan- 
geiists were vested, was extraordinary and necessarily arose from the 
sacred canon not being- yet completed, and the Church not yet settled. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 71 

churches which they visited : when they prove that these ministers 
went to those churches in a higher character than that of itinerant 
presbyters, or evangelists, the very title, and the onhj title, which 
the inspired apostle gives to one of them : when they prove that 
each of them ordained, and exercised other episcopal powers 
alone, that is, without the presence or aid of colleagues : when 
they prove that there were presbyters regularly ordained, residing 
at EpJiesus and Crete, before these missionaries went thither, who 
might have performed the rite of ordination, supposing presbyters 
to possess this power : when they prove that Timothy and Titus 
ordained, not diS presbyters, but in virtue of some superior inherent 
character ; and that, for the purpose of clothing them with this 
character, they received a new and appropriate ordination : when 
they prove these things, the argument under consideration will be 
of some value. Even then, several essential links in the chain of 
proof for establishing an indispensable and unalterable divine right, 
will be wanting. But, until these leading facts are established, the 
argument is absolutely worth nothing ; and, after all the changes 
that may be rung upon it, and all the decorations with which it may 
be exhibited, it amounts only to a gratuitous assumption of the 
whole point in dispute. 

V. Another argument frequently adduced in favour of diocesan 
episcopacy, is founded on the addresses in Rev. ii. and iii. to the 
Angels of the Asiastic Churches. "These Angels," say the 
advocates of prelacy, " were individuals, who presided over the 
" seven Churches, which are addressed in those chapters 5 and 
" who, of course, could be no other than Bishops." 

On this argument, also, much stress is laid. But, really, its sole 
merit, as in several preceding cases, consists in confident assertion, 
and in begging the whole question. 

Is it certain, that by these Angels were meant individual minis- 
ters ? Some, and, among the rest, very respectable episcopal com- 
mentators, have thought that by this word collective bodies of pastors 
were intended. Again ; supposing individuals to be meant, v/hat 
is there in the word Angel which ascertains its meaning to be a 
diocesan bishop ? Angel signifies a messenger ; and, accordingly, 
some able episcopal writers have conjectured (and no mortal can do 
more than conjecture) that the Angels referred to in this passage of 



72 LETTER III. 

Scripture were a kind of itinerant legates or special missionaries to 
several tiieCiiurches^mentioned in connexion withtliem. But, admit- 
ting that they were resident ministers 5 perhaps they were pastors 
of single congregations ; or perhaps they were the Moderators* or 
Chairmen of the respective presbyteries of Ephesusj Smyrna, &c. 
Or, perhaps, in each of those cities, the eldest and most conspicuous 
pastor was selected as the medium for addressing the church of the 
city in which he lived. I say perhaps, for each of these opinions 
has had its advocates, among Episcopalians, as well as others ; and 
it is impossible to be certain which of them approaches nearest to 
the truth ; or, whether they are not all erroneous. Amidst this 
total uncertainty, then, is it not abusing the credulity of men, to 
the last degree, to take the whole question in controversy for 
granted ; to pronounce with confidence that no other than diocesan 
bishops could have been intended ; and to represent as blinded 
with prejudice all who do not see and acknowledge this to be the 
case ? 

Let it be remembered, however, that, so far as the insulated 
word Angel carries with it a meaning to us, that meaning is much 
more favourable to presbytery than episcopacy. It was shown in 
a former letter that, in every Synagogue among the Jews, 
there was an officer, who, among other names, was called the 
Angel of the church. It was also shown that the Synagogue 
model, particularly with respect to the names and duties of 
ministers, was adopted in the Christian Church. Now if this 
reasoning be admitted, we must consider these angels as ordinary 
pastors, addressed either in their individual or collective capacity, 
probably the latter ;t and the whole strain of the addresses to them 

• Thus, in our church, when a letter is written to one of our presbyte- 
ries, to that of New York, for instance, it is always addressed, ** To the 
Moderator of the Presbytery of Neiv- York. '* 

f I am sensible that there is considerable diversity of opinion among 
Presbyterians, as well as Episcopalians, with respect to the character of 
the Apocalyptic Angels. But as the sacred writer gives us no information 
relative to their character, excepting what may be gathered from the 
name .• and as there are at least half a dozen different opinions on the 
subject, all equally reconcilable with the scriptural representation, it is 
no wonder th^t this diversity of opinion should exist. In truth, when 
thoroughly sifted, the whole argument will be found perfectly nugatory, 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 73 

serves rather to confirm than to invalidate this conclusion. — 
But we are gravely told, that some of the early fathers declare, 
that these Angels were single persons, and bishops. Though this 
is not that Scriptural testimony, which we are now demanding, 
yet we will admit the fact. Some of the fathers do say so. And 
some of the fathers go further, and tell us that they were Arch- 
bishops ; nay, some of them even go so far as to mention the names 
of these Archbishops ; though, unfortunately, they disagree among 
themselves in making out a list of the names, and, therefore, excite 
a suspicion that all their testimony on the subject is unworthy of 
credit. But, further, it is certain that some other fathers, equally 
entitled to respect, represent these angels, not as individual bishops, 
but as collective bodies. Now which of these early writers shall 
we believe r No wise man can be at a loss to answer. Their 
mutual contradictions to teach us to put no confidence in this kind 
of testimony. 

I will only add, that the learned advocate for prelacy, Mr. Dod- 
well, expressly gives up this whole argument, (n his book, entitled, 
one Priesthood and one Altar, published in 1683, he expresses 
the opinion commonly held by episcopal writers, that the Angels 
of the seven Asiastic Churches were diocesan bishops ; but in his 
Parcenesis, published about twenty years afterwards, he explicitly 
renounces this opinion ; and, while he expresses much uncertainty 
with respect to the character of these angels, and concedes the 
impossibility of deciding who they were, he rather intimates his 
belief that they were itinerary legates, sent from Jerusalem, 
answering to the seven spi?'its, mentioned Zecii. iv. 10, that are 
the eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole 
earth. 

VI. The last argument deduced by the friends of episcopacy 
from Scripture, which appears worthy of notice, is that which is 
founded on two parallel passages, one in 1 Cor. xii. the other in 
Epbes. iv. The former is in these wovAs^And God hath set 
some in tlie church; first. Apostles ; secondarily, Prophets ; third- 
ly y Teachers; after that miracles ; then gifts of healing, helps, 
governments, diversities of tongues. The latter, as follows— 

and to afford no solid evidence in favour of either episcopacy or 
presbytery 

K 



74 LETTER III. 

And he gave some, Apostles ; and some, Prophets ; and some 
Evangelists ; and some, Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting 
of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of 
the body of Christ, &c. In these passages, the friends of 
episcopacy assure us, there are various orders of Christian Ministers, 
and only enumerated, but also expressly said to be set or fixed in 
the church by its great Head. There must, then, say they, be 
various orders of clergy, by divine appointment, to the end of the 
world. 

But if these passages of Scripture are considered as representing 
the ordinary ministry of the church, in all ages, they prove by far 
too much. They prove that every regular church must have more 
than three orders of clergy : They prove that, among these, there 
must be Apostles and Prophets, as well as Evangelists, Pastors, 
and Teachers: They prove that no true church is mthout miracles, 
gifts of healing, and diversities of tongues: And, if the order 
of arrangement is that of dignity, they prove that governing the 
church is among the lowest grades of ecclesiastical duty. The 
friends of episcopacy will, perhaps, say, that some of the offices 
and gifts here enumerated, were extraordinary, and confined to 
the apostolic age. This is readily granted. It is too obvious to 
be denied. But the moment our episcopal brethren take this 
ground, they surrender the whole argument founded on these 
passages. For if a// the offices enumerated in these passages were 
notfxed in the church, and if the ichole enumeration were not 
intended as a model for us, the principle of the argument is 
abandoned. 

But, admitting, for the sake of argument, that the various classes 
of Gospel ministers here enumerated were all intended to be 
perpetual in the church : admitting all the difficulties with respect 
to Prophecy and Miracles, which no church now claims, to be 
surmounted : and admitting also, that the number of orders 
enumerated, can, by some process of ecclesiastical arithmetic 
hitherto unknown, be reduced (torn four ovftve to three, the num- 
ber of which Episcopalians are so fond ; there is still an unfortunate 
circumstance, which effectually deprives them of all benefit from (he 
argument 5 or, rather, which turns it against them. It is this ; All 
the classes or denomination of ministers here enumerated are 
represented in the New Testament, as vested with power to ordain, 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 75 

and as actually exercising this power. The ordaining power of 
apos^fes is disputed by none., Prophets and teachers, we have 
seen, performed an ordination at Antioch ; Timothy and Titus, 
who were euaw^e^zs^s, exercised the ordaining power at Ephesus 
and Crete ; and presbyters ordained Timothy to the work of the 
ministry. Now if these different denominations correspond with the 
three orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, in modern times; 
then it follows, that the power of ordination, instead of belonging 
exclusively to theirs/ of these three orders, belongs equally to them 
all. A consequence which, though perfectly reconcilable with 
our doctrine, is absolutely destructive to the episcopal scheme. 

I have now given you, my brethren, a sketch of the strongest 
arguments deduced from Scripture in favour of episcopacy, with 
which I am acquainted. It is for you to judge whether these 
arguments do really establish the claim which they are intended to 
support. It is for you to judge whether they give even probability 
to this claim. Above all, it is for you to decide, whether they 
show that it is a claim of unalterable divine right, and its admission 
essentially necessary to the regular organization of the church, and 
the valid ministration of the sacraments. For myself, T must 
conscientiously declare, that the arguments attempted to be 
drawn from Scripture, in favour of prelacy, do not appear to me to 
possess the smallest degree of real force ; and that even to concede 
to them the merit of plausibility, is more than an impartial judge 
would allow. I can truly say, that when I first approached the 
investigation of this subject, I expected to find much more in the 
sacred volume appearing to favour the episcopal cause, than I have 
since been able to discover. It did not occur to me as possible, 
that such confident appeals to Scripture could be continually made 
on grounds so entirely unsolid. I might have recollected, indeed, 
the decisive tone with which many ingenious and learned men 
have resorted to the sacred oracles to establish the supremacy of 
the Pope, and the damning sin of separation from the church of 
Rome. Nor ought we to be surprised that pious and learned men, 
of other denominations, should fall into similar mistakes, and 
express equal confidence of finding support where none is in reality 
to be found. The late Mr. Burke has somewhere said, " Let us 
" only suffer any person to tell us his story morning and evening 



76 LETTER III. 

« but for one twulvc-monihj and he will become our master." 
Many zealous advocates of episcopacy have been so long in the 
habit of saying, and of hearing it said, that the Scriptures "clearly,'' 
" strongly," and " unquestionably" declare in favour of their 
system 5 and some of them so little in the habit of reading the 
refutations of this error, that they unfeignedly believe it, and 
scruple not to stigmatize all who do not see it, as given up to 
blindness and prejudice. But, happily, we have the sacred volume 
in our hands as well as they 5 and after the most dispassionate 
examination, are compelled to pronounce their arguments from 
Scripture, nugatory ; their confidence totally unwarranted ', and 
the whole system which they profess to found on the word of God, 
a fabric resting alone on human contrivance. 

After this statement, you will not be surprised to learn, that the 
whole testimony drawn from scripture, in favour of diocesan epis- 
copacy, has been pronounced altogether inconclusive, by some of 
the warmest and ablest friends of that system. The learned Dod- 
well, one of the great oracles of high-churchmen, frankly confesses, 
that Bishops, as a superior order to Presbyters, are not to be 
found in the New Testament 5 that such an order had no existence 
until the beginning of the second century ; that presbyters were 
the highest ecclesiastical officers left in commission by the Apos- 
tles ; and that the first diocesan Bishops were ordained by Pres- 
byters, the last apostle having been dead a number of years before 
this new order was instituted in the church. And even those who 
attempt with confidence to found diocesan episcopacy on the Scrip- 
tures, exhibit such contradiction and confusion among themselves 
as entirely to invalidate the whole testimony which they would 
derive from this source. Scarcely any two of their great standard 
writers can agree upon any one principle of scriptural evidence. 
And accordingly, you have seen, that all the lending arguments 
drawn from scripture in support of prelacy, have been pronounced 
wholly untenable, and each in its turn surrendered, by a number 
of the most pious and learned divines of the church of England. 
Can Episcopalians, then, complain that we are not convinced by 
arguments, which some of the most competent judges among them- 
selves have declared to be inconclusive and even frivolous r 

But this is not all : the great body of episcopal writers, even 
those who contend most earnestly for the scriptural evidence in 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 77 

their favour, acknowledge, if I mistake not, that their system is 
not directly laid (iown in t!ie word of God. Jn other words, they 
confess, that the Scriptures, taken absolutely alone, will not bear 
them out in their claims. But they suppose, and insist, that the 
facts which are mentioned in the sacred history, taken in con- 
nexion with the writings of the early Fathers, decidedly support 
this claim. That is, the New Testament, in its own divine sim- 
plicity, is insufficient for their purpose ; but, explained, and aided, 
by the writings of fallible men, it declares positively in their favour. 

Is it so, then, that a doctrine, held not merely as important, but 
fundamental 5 not merely as fundamental, but essential to the very 
existence of the church ; without which her officers are unautho- 
rized, her ministrations invalid, and her sacraments a nullity, cannot 
be maintained from the Bible alone ? Is it so, that the Great Head 
of the church has given us his word to be a light to our feet and a 
lamp to our path ; that he has denounced the most awful threat- 
enings against those who add to, or take from the words of this 
book ; and yet that an article which lies at the foundation of all the 
interests and hopes of the christian church cannot be directly 
proved out of that book ? what is this but saying, that the Bible is, 
not a rule either perfect, or sufficient for the church ? what is this 
but embracing a principle which makes human testimony co-ordi- 
nate with that of God ; and which must involve us in all the mazes 
and uncertainly of tradition ? but the admission of the principle 
in question, is not merely taking uncertain and dangerous ground ; 
it is liable to a more serious objection. To say that an article of 
faith or practice is essential to the well being of the church, which 
is the body of Christ, and, at the same lime, that it cannot be 
distinctly and satisfactorily proved from Scripture ; is, in effect, 
bringing a charge against the great Head of the church, which 1 
know the advocates of this position would abhor equally with our- 
selves ; and which is too shocking to be expressed in language. 

But the advocates of episcopacy tell iis, that our demand of 
express warrant from Scripture, in this case, will carry us too far. 
They contend that several articles of christian belief and practice, 
generally deemed of great importance, cannot be distinctly proved 
from Revelation alone. And, particularly, they insist, that if we 
discard episcopacy for want of direct scriptural testimony in its 



78 LETTER ITl. 

favour, we must, on ilie same principle, discard infant baptism, 
and the christian sabbath, neither of which, say they, can be fully 
established on the ground of Scripture, unconnected with the 
writings of the early fathers. 

To this plea I answer without hesitation, that if it be true that a 
divine warrant for infant baptism and the christian sabbath is not 
to be found in the Bible ; if it be true that they cannot be distinct- 
ly supported from the sacred volume, independent of all other 
authorities ; then we ought instantly to discard them. Under such 
circumstances, we should be unworthy of the name of protestants 
if we retained them an hour. Nor is it any valid apology for 
the addition of human devices to the institutions of Christ, that 
other additions stand on the same ground, and are equally inde- 
fensible. , 

But it is not true that these important articles of Christian belief 
and practice, cannot be directly proved from Scripture. And to 
assert that they stand, in this respect, on a footing with the doctrine 
of diocesan episcopacy is, though certainly not an intended, yet a 
real and gross imposition on the credulity of mankind, the 

DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT BAPTISM CAN BE DECIDEDLY AND FULLY 

PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE ALONE. We cau provc from Scripture, 
with absolute certainty, the divine right of infant church mem- 
bership ; and we can prove, from the same source, and with equal 
certainty, the divine right of baptism to all church members. 
This is warrant as express as could be desired. On these two great 
facts, as on a rock, the friend of infant baptism may stand undaunt- 
ed and immovable to the end of time* : and he would be able to 
do this, if every volume in creation, excepting the Bible, were 
committed to the flames. Scarcely less evident is the scriptural 
warrant for the christian sabbath. When we find one day in 
seven kept by the people of God, as a day of sacred rest, from the 
creation till the giving of the law by Moses : when we find the 
great principle, that a seventh part of time must be solemnly 

* These two facts by no means comprise the whole of the evidence 
found in Scripture in favour oHnfant baptism. The impartial reader of the 
sacred oracles will find in them much more to the same effect. But these 
are sufficient ; and constitute, to all intents and purposes, a full and abun- 
dant warrant. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. ' 70 

consecrated to God, explicitly laid down in the decalogue, and 
declared to be of universal and perpetual obligation :* when we 
find the disciples of Christ, after the resurrection of their Lord-, 
invariably convening on the Jirst day of the week, for public 
worship : when we find this day formally and enaphatically styled 
the hordes day : when we find all this in Scripture, could any man 
doubt of the divine right of thej^rs^ day sabbathy even if no unin- 
spired author had ever written a line ? It is certainly gratifying to 
find such abundant evidence as we do in favour of both these 
ordinances in a number of early and authentic writers ; but we 
do not stand in need of human testimony. We have a higher and 
better warrant. This alone we quote, before a christian tribunal, 
as conclusive. And when the friends of episcopacy produce any 
thing like a similar warrant from Scripture, in behalf of their 
doctrine, we will believe them. 

On the whole, then, brethren, I trust you will find little difficulty 
in deciding what conclusion ought to be formed concerning a system 
which cannot claim the least solid scriptural warrant on which to 
rest ; and which flies to the writings of fallible men to help out its 
scanty evidence. You will feel no disposition, I hope, to call it by 
hard names ; or to load its advocates with reproaches. But you 
will understand your principles, as Christians and as protestants, 
too well to receive for doctrines the commandments of men ; or to 
take ground which will oblige you even indirectly to concede the 
imperfection and insufficiency of the Word of God. 

* It seems to be taken for gi-anted, by many, that ihe fourth command- 
ment, enjoins the perpetual observance of the seventh day in order. This 
is certainly a mistake. It merely consecrates to God a seventh part of 
time ,' leaving the precise day in order to be made the subject of after 
regulation. That this regulation was made we have satisfactory evidence. 



( 80 ) 



LETTER IV. 

TESTIMONY OF THE PRIMITIVE FATHERS. 

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

The most respectable and authentic writers in the christian 
church, who lived during the first four or five centuries after Christ, 
are emphatically styled, by ecclesiastical historians, the fathers. 
The writings of these venerable men have been much resorted to in 
this controversy. Many, even of those who acknowledge the 
feebleness and insufficiency of the episcopal arguments from 
Scripture, believe that the fathers speak decidedly in their favour. 
Whatever doubts may attend the evidence in support of their 
system, drawn from other sources, here, they imagine, there can 
be no question. For the sake of such persons ; and to enable you 
to decide how far many positive declarations which are made by 
the friends of episcopacy are entitled to credit, it becomes necessary 
to inquire what these early writers attest on the subject before us. 

I shall not now stay to ascertain what degree of respect is due 
to the writings of the fathers in general. It is ray duty, however, 
to state, that we do not refer to them, in any wise, as a rule either 
of faith or of practice. We acknowledge the Scriptures alone to be 
such a rule. By this rule, the fathers themselves are to be tried ; 
and, of course, they cannot be considered, properly speaking, as 
the Christianas authority for any thing. . It is agreed, on all hands, 
that they are no infallible guides : and it is perfectly well 
known to all who are acquainted with their writings, that many of 
them are inconsistent both with themselves, and with one another. 
We protest, therefore, utterly against any appeal to them as an 
authority on this subject. Though they, or an angel from heaven, 
should bring us any doctrine, as essential to the order and well- 
being of the church, which is not to be found in the Word of God, 
we are boond by the command of our Master to reject them. 

But, as our episcopal brethren have frequently complained, that 
we treat the fathers with too little respect ; and even insinuated that 
we have no way of avoiding the force of their testimony, but by 



, TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 81 

endeavouring to destroy their credibility ; I will give as little ground 
of uneasiness on this head as possible. Waiving, therefore, ail 
further discussion of their title to credit, I will cheerfully admit 
thera as credible witnesses with respect to matters o( fact, which 
might be supposed to come within their knowledge. On this 
ground, then, I will join issue with our opponents; and not only 
admit, but engage to abide by the testimony of their chosen 
witnesses. 

In examining the writings of the fathers, I shall admit only the 
testimony of those who wrote within the first two centuries. 
Immediately after this period so many corruptions began to creep 
into the church; so many of the most respectable christian writers 
are known to have been heterodox in their opinions ; so much 
evidence appears, that even before the commencement of the third 
century, the papacy began to exhibit its pretensions ; and such 
multiplied proofs of wide spreading degeneracy crowd into view, 
that the testimony of every subsequent writer is to be received 
with suspicion. Besides, if diocesan episcopacy existed, and were 
of the fundamental importance that our episcopal brethren make 
it to be, we may surely expect to find some reference to it in the 
records of two hundred years ; and especially when we consider 
that those were years of the greatest simplicity and purity ever 
known to the church. 

Before we proceed to examine what the fathers say on this sub- 
ject, let us be careful to recollect precisely, what our episcopal 
brethren contend for, and what they are bound to prove by these 
witnesses, in order to make good their claims. When they show 
us passages in which these early writers merely speak of bishops, 
they seem to imagine that their point is gained : but such passages 
are, in fact, nothing to their purpose. We do not deny that there 
were bishops in the primitive church : on the contrary, we contend 
that the word bishop was a title given, in apostolic times and long 
afterwards, to every pastor of a particular congregation. Again, 
when they quote passages which barely enumerate bishops, pres- 
byters, and deacons, as distinct officers in the church, they can 
derive no assistance even from these ; because there were, doubt- 
less, j?res6yfers, at that time, as well as now, who, though in full 
orders, were not invested with a pastoral charge ; and who must, 
therefore, be distinguished from such as w.ere literally overseers or 
L 



82 LETTER IV. 

bishops of particular flocks. Besides, we know that there were 
ruling elders in the primitive church; a class of presbyters con- 
fessed to be inferior to bishops in their ecclesiastical character. In 
enumerating church officers, then, there was frequently a necessity 
for making the distinction above stated, without in the least favour- 
ing the pretended superiority of order among those who laboured 
in the word and doctrine. The advocates for diocesan episcopacy, 
then, if they would derive any support to their cause from the writ- 
ings of the fathers, must do what they have never yet done. 
They must produce from those venerable remains of antiquity, pas- 
sages which prove, either by direct assertion, or fair inference, that 
the bishops of the primitive church were a distinct order of clergy 
from those yresbyters who were authorized to preach and admi- 
nister sacraments, and superior to them ; that these bishops, when 
they were advanced to this superior office, had a new and distinct 
ordination*, that each bishop had under him a number of congre- 
gations, with their pastors, whom he governed ; that these bishops 
were exclusively invested with the right of ordaining, and adminis- 
tering the right of confirmaiion ; and that this kind of episcopacy 
was considered, by the whole primitive churcb, as an institution 
of Jesus Christ. When any one of these facts is fairly proved, 
from early antiquity, the friends of Presbyterian church govern- 
ment will feel as if they had something like solid argument to con- 
tend with ; but not till then. Now, after having given much close 
and serious attention to this subject, I can venture to assure you, 
that in all the authentic writings which have come down to us, of 
those fathers who lived within the first two hundred years after 
Christ, there is not a single sentence which can be considered, by 
an impartial reader, as affording the least support to any one of 
these positions. 

When you find the friends of episcopacy asserting that the 
fathers, in the " plainest terms," " unanimously," and " with one 
voice," declare in their favour, you would naturally expect to find 
these early wi iters saying much, and expressing themselves in 
decisive and unequivocal language on this subject. But, how will 
you be surprised to learn, that there is not a single authentic writ- 
ing extant, composed within the first three hundred years after 
Christ, that speaks directly and formally to the purpose, on any 
one point in this controversy ! The first writer who undertook to 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 83 

discuss the question, whether bishops and presbyters were distinct 
in the apostle's days, was Jerome, who lived in the fourth century: 
and how he has decided the question we shall see in the next 
letter. In all the writings of earlier date, the character and powers 
of church officers are mentioned in an indistinct and cursory man- 
ner ; frequently by way of remote allusion, so as to leave it doubt- 
ful whether they were intended at all 5 generally without any appa- 
rent design to convey information respecting them ; and always 
as if the subject were considered by the writers as of minor import- 
ance. It is from these hints, allusions^ and occasional intimations, 
that we are to deduce the early opinions on the point before us. 

Let us make the experiment. Let us bring forward the testi- 
mony of these ancient worthies in order. And in doing this, it 
shall be my aim, not only to cite those passages which appear 
favourable to my own cause 5 but also faithfully to state the strong- 
est of those which are usually quoted by our episcopal brethren in 
support of their claim. 

In the catalogue of the fathers, who say any thing worthy of 
our attention on this subject, Clemens Romanus holds the first 
place. He lived towards the close of the first century ; had 
doubtless conversed with several of the apostles ; and left behind 
him one Epistle, directed to the brethren of the church at Corinth, 
the authenticity of which is generally admitted. The occasion of 
the epistle was this. There had been a kind of schism in the 
church of Corinth, in which the body of the brethren had risen up 
against their pastors, and unjustly deposed them. The design of 
Clemens in writing was to call these brethren to a sense of their 
duty, and to induce them to restore and obey their pastors. In 
this epistle the following passages are found. " The apostles, 
" going abroad, preaching through countries and cities, appointed 
" the first fruits of their ministry to be bishops and deacons. Nor 
" was this any thing new ; seeing that long before it was written 
" concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture 
" in a certain place, ' I will appoint their bishops in righteousness 
" and their deacons in faith.'* Again — " The apostles knew by 

* Clemens here, no doubt, refers to Isa. Ix. 17. which, in our English 
Bibles, is rendered, / will also make thy officers peacey and thine exactors 
righteousness; but which, in the Septuagint, with which he was probably 
most conversant, is interpreted thus: I tuill appoint thy rulers in peace, 



84 LETTER IV. 

" our Lord Jesus Christ, that contentions would arise about the 
" name of episco]:acy ; and, therefore, having a perfect foreknow- 
" ledge of this, they appointed persons, as we have before said ; 
" and gave direction how, when they should die, other chosen and 
" approved raen should succeed in their ministry. Wherefore we 
" cannot think that those may be justly thrown out of their minis- 
" try, who were either appointed by them, or afterwards chosen 
" by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church. 
" For it would be no small sin in us should we cast off those from 
" their Episcopate (or Bishoprick) who holily and without blame 
** fulfil the duties of it. Blessed are those presbyters who, having 
" finished their course before these times, have obtained a perfect 
" and fruitful dissolution. For they have no fear lest any one 
" should turn them out of the place which is now appointed for 
" them." And a little afterwards — " It is a shame, my beloved, 
" yea, a very great shame, and unworthy of your Christian pro- 
" fession, to hear, that the most firm and ancient Church of the 
" Corinthians, should, by one or two persons, be led into a sedition 
" against its presbyters. Only let the flock of Christ be in peace 
" with the presbyters that are set over it. lie that shall do this, 
" shall get to himself a very great honour in the Lord. Do ye, 
" therefore, who first laid the foundation of this sedition, submit 
" yourselves to your presbyters ; and be instructed into repentance, 
" bending the knee of your hearts."* ^ 

Clemens^ in these passages, evidently represents the Church at 
Corinth as subject not to an individual, but to a company of per- 
sons, whom he cdWs presbyters, or elders. He exhorts the mem- 
bers of that Church to be obedient to these presbyters; and 
expostulates with them, because they had opposed and ill-treated 
their presbyters, and cast them out of their bishoprick. Thus we 
see that in the writings of Clemens, as well as in the New Testa- 
ment, the titles bishop and presbyter, are interchangeably applied 

and thy bishops (^sTta-KOTroui) in righteousness. If we interpret Clemens 
rigidly, he will stand as an advocate for two orders instead of three. But 
he, doubtless, only meant to quote this passage as a general promise, 
that under the New Testament dispensation there should be a regularly 
organized church, and proper officers; without undertaking to define 
either their number or grades. 

* Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, sections 42, 43, 44. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 85 

to the same men. This venerable father gives not the least hint 
of any distinction between the office of bishop and presbi/ter, but 
plainly represents them as the same ; nor does he once speak of 
three orders in the Christian ministry. He mentions a plurality of 
bishops in the same city ; nay, he not only represents the great 
cities as being furnished with bishops, but speaks of them as being 
also appointed in the country villages. 

Had there been an individual in the Church at Corinth vested 
with the powers of a modern bishop, could Clemens, with any 
decency have avoided mentioning or alluding to hira ? Who so 
proper to settle differences between presbyters and their people, as 
the bishop, empowered to rule both ? And if the place of such a 
bishop were vacant, by death, or otherwise, was it not natural for 
Clemens to say something about the appointment of a successor, as 
the most likely way to restore order in the Church ? The single 
fact of his total silence concerning such an officer, under these 
circumstances, is little short of conclusive evidence, that the vene- 
rable writer knew of no other bishops than the presbyters to whom 
he exhorted the people to be subject.* 

There is one passage in this epistle of Clemens Romanus, which 
has been frequently and confidently quoted by episcopal writers, as 
favourable to their cause. It is in these words ; sect. 40, 41. "Seeing, 
" then, these things are manifest to us, it will behove us to take care 
" that we do all things in order, whatsoever our Lord has com- 
" manded us to do. And, particularly, that we perform our offer- 
" ings and service to God at their appointed seasons; for these 
" he has commanded to be done, not rashly and disorderly, but at 
" certain times and hours. And, therefore, he has ordained, by 
" his supreme will and authority, both where, and by what per- 
" sons, they are to be performed. They, therefore, who make 
" their offerings at the appointed season are happy and accepted ; 
" because, that, obeying the commandments of the Lord, they are 

* The learned Grotius speaks of it as a proof of the antiquity and 
genuineness of Clements epistle, " that he no where takes notice of that 
•' peculiar authority of bishops, which was first introduced into the 
*• Church of Alexandria, and from that example into other Churches; 
•' but evidently shows, that the Churches were governed by the common 
" council of presbytersy who, by him, and the apostle Paul, are all called 
'• bishops.'* Epist. ad Bignon. 



86 LETTER IV. 

" free from sin. For the High-Priest has his proper services ; 
" and to the priests their proper place is appointed ; and to the 
" Levifes appertain their proper ministries; and the lay-man is 
" is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to lay-men. 
" Let every one of you, therefore, brethren, bless God in his pro- 
sper station, with a good conscience, and with all gravity; not 
" exceeding the rule of the service to which he is appointed. 
" The daily sacrifices are not offered every where ; nor the peace- 
" offerings ; nor the sacrifices appointed for sin and transgression ; 
" but only at Jerusalem / nor in any place there ; but only at 
" the altar before the temple ; that which is offered being first 
" diligently examined by the High-Priest, and the other ministers 
" we before mentioned." 

From this allusion to the priesthood of the Jews, the advocates 
of episcopacy infer that Clemens intended to exhibit that priest- 
hood as a pattern for the Christian ministry. But nothing more is 
necessary to set aside this inference than a little attention to the 
scope and connexion of the passage. Clemens is endeavouring to 
convince the members of the Corinthian Church of the necessity 
of submission to their pastors, and of the great importance of 
ecclesiastical order. For this purpose, in passages a little pre- 
ceding that which is above quoted, he alludes to the regularity 
which prevails in the natural ivorld, and particularly among the 
various members of the human body. He refers also to the sub- 
ordination which is found necessary in military affairs, remark- 
ing, that some are only common soldiers, some prefects, some 
captains of fifties, some of hundreds, and some of thousands; 
every one of whom is bound to keep his own station. And, finally, 
in the passage under consideration, he calls the attention of those 
to whom he wrote to the strict order that was observed in the 
temple service of the Jews, and especially with respect to the 
times and circumstances of their offering the commanded sacrifices. 
Such is the plain and unquestionable scope of the whole passage. 
Is there any thing here like an intimation of three orders in the 
Christian ministry } As well might it be contended that Clemens 
would have the Christian Church organized like an army ; and 
that he recommends foiir orders of ministers, corresponding with 
the four classes of military ofiicers, to which he alludes. How 
wonderful must be the prejudice that can make this use of an 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 87 

allusion ! And, above all, how weak and desperate must be that 
cause, which cannot be supported but by recurring to such means ! 

The next early writer, who says any thing on this subject, is 
Hermas. Concerning the life and character of this father, we 
have no information. We only know, that he left behind him a 
work entitled Pastor^ which has come down to our times, and 
the authenticity of which is generally admitted. It was originally 
written in Greek; but we have now extant only an old Latin 
version, of the author or date of which we know nothing. In this 
work the following passages relating to the ministry are found. 

" Thou shalt, therefore, say to those who preside over the 
" Church, that they order their ways in righteousness, that they 
" may fully receive the promise, with much glory." Again, — 
" After this, I saw a vision at home, in my own house; and the 
" old woman, whom I had seen before, came to me, and asked 
" me, whether I had yet delivered her book to the elders. And I 
" answered that I had not yet. She replied, thou hast done well; 
" for I have certain words more to tell thee. And when I have 
" finished all the words, they shall be clearly understood by the 
" elect. And thou shalt write two books, and send one to Clement, 
" and one to Grapte. For Clement shall send it to the foreign 
"cities, because it is permitted to him to do so. But Grapte 
" shall admonish the widows and orphans. But thou shalt read 
" in this city with the elders who preside over the Church.^^ 
Again — " Hear now concerning the stones that are in the building. 
" The square and white stones, which agree exactly in their joints 
" are the apostles, and bishops, and doctors, and ministers, who, 
" through the mercy of God, have come in, and governed, and 
" taught, and ministered, holily and modestly, to the elect of 
" God." Again — " As for those who had their rods green, but 
" yet cleft ; they are such as were always faithful and good ; but 
" they had some envy and strife among themselves, concerning 
" dignity and pre-eminence. Now all such are vain and without 
" understanding^ as contend with one another about these things. 
" For the life of those who keep the commandments of the Lord, 
" consists in doing what they are commanded ; not in principality/, 
" or in any other dignity P Once more — " For what concerns 
" the tenth mountain, in which were the trees covering the cattle. 



88 LETTER IV. 

" they are such as have believed, and some of them have been 
<* bishops, that is, presidents of the Churches. Then such as have 
" been set over inferior ministries, and have protected the poor, 
" and the widows/' &c.* 

From one of the foregoing extracts, it is evident that Hermas 
resided at Rome ; thai he had a particular reference to the Church 
in that city; and that the period at which he wrote was, when 
Clement y before mentioned, was one of the bishops or presidents of 
that Church. From a comparison of these extracts, it will also 
appear that Hermas considered bishops and elders as different 
titles for the same office. He speaks of elders as presiding over 
the Church of Rome ; he represents a plurality of elders as having 
x\i\s presidency at the same time; having used the word Bishops, 
he explains it as meaning those who presided over the Churches; 
and immediately after bishops, (without mentioning presbyters,^ 
he proceeds to speak of Deacons, that is, those who are intrusted 
with the protection of the poor and of the widows. 

On one of the passages quoted above, some zealous friends of 
episcopacy have laid considerable stress. It is this. " The 
"square and white stones, which agree exactly in their joints, are 
" the apostles, and bishops, and doctors, and ministers, who, 
" through the mercy of God," &c. On this passage, Cotelerius, a 
learned Roman Catholic editor, has the following note. " You have 
" here the distinct orders of the hierarchy, in apostles, in bishops, 
" exercising episcopacy, in doctors, or presbyters, teaching, and in 
" deacons ministering." In language of the same import, some 
protestanl friends of prelacy have commented on the passage. It is 
really amusing to find grave and sober men attempting to make so 
much of a passage, in every respect, so little to their purpose. For, 
to say nothing of the evidently loose and fanciful nature of the 
whole comparison ; it is not a warrant for three, but for four 
orders of clergy ; and, of course, if it proves any thing, will prove 
too, much for the system of any protestant Episcopalian. 

The epistle of Polycarp to the church at Philippi, written early 
in the second century, stands next on the roll of antiquity. This 
venerable martyr, like Clemens, speaks of only two orders of 

* Vision, II. 4. III. 5, 6. Similitude, IX. 27. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 89 

church officers, \\z. presbyters and deacons.* He exhorts the 
Philippians to obey these officers in the Lord. " It behoves you," 
says he, " to abstain from these things, being subject to the 
" yreshyters and deacons as to God and Christ." And again : 
"Let the pres6?/<e?'s be compassionate and merciful towards all; 
"turning them from their errors ; seeking out those that are weak ; 
" not forgettingthe widows, the fatherless, and the poor; abstaining 
" from all wrath, respect of persons, and unrighteous judgment; 
" not easy to believe anything against any; nor severe in judg- 
" ment ; knowing that we are all debtors in point of law." The 
word bishop is no where mentioned in his whole epistle ; nor does 
he give the most distant hint as if there were any individual or 
body of men vested with powers superior to presbyters. On the 
contrary, he speaks of the presbyters as being intrusted with the 
inspection and rule of the church ; for, while, on the one hand, he 
exhorts the members of the church to submit to them, he intreats 
the presbyters themselves to abstain from unrighteous judgment, 
and to have no respect of persons. 

Perhaps it will be asked, Ts not Pohjcarp spoken of, by several 
early writers, as bishop of Smyrna? And does not this fact alone 
establish the principle for which Episcopalians contend ? I answer, 
by no means. Folycarp is indeed called by this name. So also is 
Clement called bishop of Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch. Nor, 
perhaps, have we any reason to doubt that they were so. But in 
what sense were they bishops ? We say, they were scriptural, 
primitive bishops, that is, pastors, or among the pastors, of 
particular congregations. And in support of this assertion, we 
produce the testimony of scripture, and the uniform language of the 
truly primitive church. But whatever kind of bishop Folycarp 
was, we shall presently see that a contemporary father exhorts him 
to be personally acquainted with every member of his flock ; to 
seek out all by name ; and not to overlook even the servant men 
and maids of his charge. Whether the minister who could do this, 
was more than the pastor of a single congregation, I leave every 
man of common sense to judge. 

* It is worthy of remark, that the apostle Paul, in writing to the same 
church about 50 or 60 years before, also speaks of their having- only two 
orders of officers, \\z. bishops and deacons. See Philip i. 1. But those 
whom Paw/ styled bishops. Poly carp afterwards C2i\\s presbyters, the names 
in the time o\' Folycarp, as well as in the time of Paul, being- still common. 
M 



90 LETTER IV. 

The fourth place, in the list of apostolical fathers', belongs to 
Ignatius. Tiie epistles which go under the name of this venerable 
christian bishop, have been the subject of much controversy. 
That some copies of them were interpolated, and exceedingly 
corrupted, in the dark ages, all learned men now agree.* And 
that even the "shorter epistles," as published by Usher and 
Vossius, are unworthy of confidence, as the genuine works of the 
father whose name they bear, is the opinion of many of the ablest 
and best judges in the protestant world. 

These epistles were first published at Strashurg in the year 
1502. And, although only seven are now received as genuine, 
they were then eleven in number. In an edition published a iid\Y 
years afterwards there appeared twelve; and not long after that, 
fifteen ; together with an additional letter from the Virgin Mary 
to Ignatius. Nor did they alter thus in number merely 5 for in 
some of those editions, several of the epistles were nearly twice as 
large as in others. Accordingly, archbishop Wake^ in the preface 
to his translation of these epistles, remarks : " there have been 
" considerable difierences in the epistles of this holy man, no less 
" than in the judgment of our Latin critics concerning them. To 
" pass by the first and most imperfect of them, the best that for a 
"long time was extant, contained not only a great number of 
" epistles falsely ascribed to this author; but even those that were 
" genuine, so altered and corrupted, that it was hard to find out 
" the true Ignatius in them. The first that began to remedy this 
'' confusion, and to restore this great writer to his primitive sim- 
" plicity, was our most reverend and learned Archbishop Usher, 
" in his edition of them at Oxford, Anno 1644." The venerable 
Archbishop of Armagh, found two copies of six of these epistles 
in England ; not in the original Greek, but in very barbarous 
Latin translations. In 1646, the learned Isaac Vossius found in 
in the Medicean Library, a copy in Greek, containing seven 
epistles, pnd published it soon afterwards in Amsterdam. From 

* It is even agreed that some of these interpolations were made with 
the express view of furnishing" support to the ambitious claims o^ bishops. 
Speaking of some of the interpolations, Dr. Hammond^ a zealous 
Episcopalian, represents them as "immoderate," " extravagant," and 
"senseless;" and concludes that thty are evidently the work of some 
•' impostor." 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 91 

these three copies Archbishop Wake has formed his English ver- 
sion, adopting from each what he thought most likely to be correct. 
Ushei^ had much doubt of the genuineness of the seventh epistle, 
to Polycarp. " Nor," observes Archbishop Wake, " does Isaac 
" Vossius himself deny but that there are some things in it, which 
" may seem to render it suspicious." Yet, on the whole, he pub- 
lished it, and JVake adopted it as genuine, with the other six. 
From the time of Usher to the present, there has been unceasing 
controversy concerning the genuineness of these epistles. The great 
body of Episcopal writers have felt so much interest in their sup- 
posed importance as witnesses in favour of prelacy, that they have 
generally contended for them as the genuine remains of the pious fa- 
ther whose name they bear. But it is believed, that a large majority 
of the learned of other Protestant denominations, for nearly two cen- 
turies have been of the opinion that they could not be relied upon, 
and ought never to be quoted as the unadulterated work of Igna- 
tius : but that they bear manifest marks of having been interpolated 
long after the martyrdom of their reputed author. The following 
judgment of a learned and zealous Episcopalian, who writes in the 
Christian Observer, an English periodical, conducted with great 
ability by members of the established Church is worthy of notice. 
" Could six of the seven epistles, usually ascribed to Ignatius be 
" cited with the same undoubting confidence which has accompa- 
" nied the foregoing quotations, the controversy concerning the 
" early existence of Episcopacy would be at an end. But, after 
" travelling so long in comparative obscurity, after being compelled 
" to close and strongly directed attention, in order to pick up three 
" or four rays of scattered light, we are in a moment oppressed and 
" confounded by the brightness of the mid-day sun. For in these 
" epistles we have the three orders of bishops, priests, and dea- 
" cons, marshalled with unseasonable exactness, and repeated with 
" importunate anxiety. There appear, moreover, so many symp- 
" toms of contrivance, and such studied uniformity of expression, 
" that these compositions will surely not be alleged by any capable 
" and candid advocate for primitive episcopacy, without great 
" hesitation : by many tliey will be entirely rejected. I do not 
" mean to insinuate that the whole of these six epistles is a forgery; 
" on the contrary many parts of them afford strong internal evi- 
" dence of their own genuineness : but with respect to the particu- 



92 LETTER IV. 

" lar passages wliich affect the present (the Episcopal) dispute, 
" there is not a sentence which I would venture to allege. The 
" language, at the earliest, is that of the fourth century."* When 
a zealous advocate of prelacy can write thus, there is surely 
ground for utter distrust of these epistles, when quoted as testimony 
on the subject before us. 

But, instead of entering into this controversy, I will take for 
granted that the shorter epistles of Ignatius, (and they alone are 
now quoted among Protestants) are genuine, and worthy of 
implicit confidence. On this supposition let us examine them. 
And I will venture to affirm that instead of yielding to the cause 
oi diocesan episcopaaj that efficient support which is imagined, 
they do not contain a single sentence which can be construed in 
its favour ; but, on the contrary, much which can only be recon- 
ciled with the primitive, parochial episcopacy, or Presbyterian 
government, so evidently pourtrayed in scripture, and so particu- 
larly defined in my first letter. 

The following extracts from these epistles are among the 
strongest quoted by Episcopal writers in support of their cause.t 

Epistle to the church of Ephesus, Sect. v. " Let no man 
" deceive himself; if a man be not within the altar he is deprived 
" of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two be of such 
" force, as we are told ; how much more powerful shall that of the 
" bishop and the whole church be ? He, therefore, that does not 
" come together into the same place with it, is proud, and has 
" already condemned himself." 

Epistle to the church of Magnesia. Sect. 2. " Seeing then, 
"I have been judged worthy to see you, by DamaSy your most 
" excellent bishop, and by your worthy presbyters, Bassus and 
" Apollonius, and by my fellow servant, Sotio, the deacon — I 
" determined to write unto you." Sect. 6. ^' I exhort you that 
" ye study to do all things in divine concord 5 your bishop presid- 
" ing in the place of God 5 your presbyters in the place of the 
" council of the apostles ; and your deacons most dear to me, being 

* Christian Observer^ Vol. ii. p. 723. 

f To cut off all occasion of doubt, as to the fairness used in translating 
these extracts, I think proper to state, that I adopt the translation of 
A rchbishop Wake. ' ' 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 93 

" intrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the 
" Father before all ages, and appeared in the end to us. Let there 
" be nothing that may be able to make a division among you ; but 
" be ye united to your bishop, and those who preside over you, to 
" be your pattern and direction in the way to immortality." Sect. 
"7. As, therefore, the Lord did nothing without the Father 
" being united to him ; neither by himself, nor yet by his apostles ; 
" so neither do ye any thing without your bishop and presbyters : 
" Neither endeavour to let any thing appear rational to yourselves 
" apart ; but being come together into the same place, have one 
" common prayer, one supplication, one mind ; one hope, in 
" charity, and in joy undefiled. There is one Lord Jesus Christ, 
" than whom nothing is better. Wherefore come ye all together 
" as unto one temple of God ; as to one altar ; as to one Jesus 
" Christ ; who proceeded from one Father, and exists in one, and 
" is returned to one." 

Epistle to the Trallians. Sect. 2. '^ Whereas ye are subject 
" to your bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye appear to me to live not 
" after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ; who 
'^ died for us, that so believing in his death, ye might escape death. 
*•' It is therefore necessary, that, as ye do, so without your bishop, 
" you should do nothing. Also be ye subject to your presbyters, as 
" to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom if we walk, 
" we shall be found in him. The deacons, also, as being the 
" ministers of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, must by all means 
" please all." Sect. 7- " Wherefore guard yourselves against 
" such persons. And that you will do, if you are not puffed up ; 
'* but continue inseparable from Jesus Christ our God, and from 
" your bishop, and from the command of the apostles. He that is 
" within the altar is pure ; but he that is without, that is, that does 
" any thing without the bishop, and presbyters, and deacons, is not 
" pure in his conscience." 

The epistle to the church at Smyrna. Sect. 8. " See that ye 
"all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ, the Father; and the 
" presbytery as the apostles : and reverence the deacons as the 
" command of God. Let no man do any thing of what belongs to 
" the church separately from the bishop. Let that Eucharist be 
" looked upon as well established, which is either oftered by the 
" bishop, or by him to whom the bishop has given his consent. 



94 LETTER IV. 

" Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people'also be : 
^' as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church. It is not 
" lawful, without the bishop, either to baptize, or to celebrate the 
" holy communion. But whatsoever he shall approve of, that is 
'* also pleasing to God ; that so whatever is done, may be sure 
" and well done." Sect. 12. " I salute your very worthy bishop, 
" and your venerable presbytery, and your deacons, my fellow 
" servants ; and all of you in general, and every one in particular, 
" in the name of Jesus Christ." 

Epistle to Polycarp. " Ignatius who is called TheopJiorus, to 
" Polycarp, bishop of the church which is at Smyrna ; their 
" overseer, but rather himself overlooked by God the Father, and 
" the Lord Jesus Christ: all happiness! Sect. 1. " Maintain thy 
" place with all care, both of flesh and spirit : Make it thy endea- 
" vour to preserve unity, tharj which nothing is better. Speak to 
"every one as God shall enable thee." Sect. 4. "Let not the 
" widows be neglected : be thou, after God, their guardian. Let 
" nothing be done without thy knowledge and consent : neither do 
" thou any thing but according to the will of God ; as also thou 
" dost with all constancy. Let your assemblies be more full: inquire 
" into all by name: overlook not the men nor maid servants ; neither 
" let them be puffed up, but rather let them be more subject to the 
" glory of God, that they may obtain from him a better liberty." 
Sect. 5. " Tt becomes all such as are married, whether men or 
" women, to come together with the consent of the bishop ; that so 
" their marriage may be according to godliness, and not in lust." 
Sect. 6. " Hearken unto the bishop, that God also may hearken 
" unto you. My soul be security for them that submit to their 
" bishop, with their presbyters and deacons." 

These are the passages in the epistles of Ignatius, which epis- 
copal writers have triumphantly quoted, as beyond all doubt 
establishing their claims. Nothing stronger or more decisive is 
pretended to be found in these far famed relics of antiquity. Now 
I ask you, my brethren, whether there is in these extracts, a 
sentence that can serve their purpose ?— Let me again remind you, 
that they plead, not for such bishops as we acknowledge, that is, 
pastors of single congregations, each furnished with elders and 
deacons, to assist in the discharge of parochial duties. On the 
contrary, tiiey plead (or diocesan bishops, as a distinct and superior 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 95 

order of clergy, who alone are invested with the right to govern 
the church, to ordain, and to confirm. But is there a single hint 
in these extracts which looks as if the bishops mentioned in them 
were of a distinct and superior order ? Is there a single word said 
about the powers of ordaining and confirming being appropriated 
to these bishops ? Not a syllable that has the most distant resem- 
blance to any thing of this kind is to be found in all the epistles 
before us.* On the contrary, it is evident — 

1. That the bishop so frequently mentioned by this venerable 
father, is only a parochial bishop, or in other words, the pastor of 
a single congregation. The church of which this bishop has the 
care is represented, throughout the epistles, as coming together to 
one place ; as worshipping in one assembly ; as having one aliar^ 
ox communion table; as eating of owe Zo«/; having one prayer; 
and, in short, uniting in all the acts of solemn worship. But all 
this can only apply to a single congregation. Again, the bishop 
here spoken of, is represented as present iviih his flock whenever 
they come together 5 as conducting their prayers, and presiding 
in all their public service : as the only person who was authorized, 
in ordinary cases, to administer baptism and the Lordh supper ; 
as the person by whom all marriages were celebrated ; and whose 
duty it was to he personally acquainted with all his flock ; to take 
notice, with his own eye, of those who were absent from public 
worship ; to attend to the widows and \\iQ poor of his congregation; 
to seek out all by name, and not to overlook even the men and 
maid-servants living in his parish. I appeal to your candour, my 
brethren, whether these representations and directions can be 
reasonably applied to any other officer than the pastor of a single 
church ? 

2. It is equally evident, that \hQ presbyters and presbytery so 
frequently mentioned in the foregoing extracts, together with the 
deacons, refer to officers wjiich, in the days of Ignatius, belonged, 
like the bishop, to each particular church. Most of the epistles of 
this father are directed to particular churches ; and in every case, 

* Accordingly Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Stilling fleet declares— '« Of all 
" the thirty-five testimonies produced out of Ignatius his epistles, for 
" episcopacy, I can meet with but one which is brought to prove the least 
'* semblance oi an institution of Christ for episcopacy, and, if I be not 
" much deceived, the sense of that place is clearly mistaken.'' Irenicum. 



96 LETTER IV. 

we find each church furnished with a bishop y a presbytery, and 
deacons. But what kind of officers were these presbyters ? The 
friends of prelacy, without hesitation, answer, they were the inferior 
clergy, who ministered to the several congregations belonging to 
each of the dioceses mentioned in these epistles ; an order of clergy 
subject to the bishop, empowered to preach, baptize, and admi- 
nister the Lord's Supper; but having no power to ordain or confirm. 
But all this is said without the smallest evidence. On the contrary, 
the presbyters or presbytery are represented as always present, 
with the bishop and his congregation, when assembled ; as bearing 
a relation to the same flock equally close and inseparable with its 
pastor ; and as being equally necessary in order to a regular and 
valid transaction of its affairs. In short, to every altar, or com- 
munion table, there was one presbytery, as well as one bishop. To 
suppose then that these presbyters were the parish jtriests, or 
rectors of different congregations, within the diocese to which they 
belonged, is to disregard every part of the representation which is 
given respecting them. No ; the only rational and probable con- 
struction of the language o( Ignatius is, that each of the particular 
churches to which he wrote, besides its pastor and deacons, was 
furnished with a bench of elders or presbyters, some of them, 
probably, ordained to the work of the ministry,* and therefore 
empowered to feac/i and administer ordinances, 'ds well as rule; 
and others empowered to rule only. The whole strain of these 
epistles, then, may be considered as descriptive of Presbyterian 
government. They exhibit a number of particular churches, each 
furnished with a bishop or pastor, and also with elders and deacons, 
to whose respective ministrations every private member is exhorted, 
as long as they are regular, implicitly to submit.t 

* I say some of these Elders were probably ordained to the work of the 
ministry, and oFcourse, empowered to preach and administer ordinances: 
But this is not certain. They might all have been ruling elders for aught 
that appears to the contrary. For in all these epistles, it is no where 
said that they either preached or dispensed the sacraments. It cannot be 
shown then, that Ignatius^ by his presbyters and presbytery ^ or eldership^ 
means any thing else than a bench oi ruling elders in each chm'ch. 

f Every regularly organized Presbyterian church has a bishop^ elders, 
and deacons. Of the bench of elders, the bishop is the standing president 
or moderator. Sometimes, where a congregation is large, it has two or 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 97 

I have been thus particular in attending to the testimony of 
Ignatius, because the advocates of prelacy have always considered 
him as more decidedly in their favour than any other father, and 
have contended for the genuineness of his writings with as much 
zeal as if the cause of episcopacy were involved in their fate. But 
you will perceive that these writings, when impartially examined, 
instead of affording aid to that cause, furnish decisive testimony 
against it. 

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, a city of Asia, is said to have 
been " an hearer of John, and a companion of PohjcarpJ'' He 
flourished about the year 110 or 115. Some fragments of his 
writings have been preserved. Out of these, the following passage 
is the only one that I have been able to find, that has any relation 
to the subject under debate. It is cited by Eusehius, in his 
Ecclesiastical Histori/, lib. iii. cap. 39. 

" I shall not think it grievous to set down in writing, with my 
'^ interpretations, the things which I have learned of \.\\e presbyters, 
" and remember as yet very well, being fully certified of their truth. 
" If I met any where with one who had conversed with the 
" presbyters, I inquired after the sayings of the presbyters ; what 
" Andrew, what Peter, what Philip, what Thomas, or James had 
" said ; what John^ or Matthew, or any other disciples of the 

more bishops, united in the pastoral charge, and having, in all respects 
an official equality. When this is the case, each of the bishops is pre- 
sident or moderator of the eldership in turn. In sonr.e Presbyterian 
churches, the bishop, instead of having one or more colleagues, of equal 
authority and power with himself, has an assistant or assistants. These 
assistants, though clothed with the whole ministerial character, and 
capable, without any other ordination, of becoming pastors themselves ; 
yet as long as they remain in this situation, they bear a relation to the 
bishop similar to that which curates bear to the rector, in some episcopal 
churches ; and of course, cannot regularly baptize or administer the 
Lord's Supper without the concurrence of the bishop. Ignatius, there- 
fore, could scarcely give a more perfect representation than he does of 
Presbteyrian government. And if a modern Presbyterian were about to 
speak of the officers of his church, and were to use the Greek language 
as Ignatius did, he would almost necessarily say as he did, E7ria->co7roc, 
TTgid-liv'Tigoi )iut^tu}iovoi. So perfectly futile is the allegation that this 
language is (/emzyfi in support of prelacy! It is absolutely in perfect 
coincidence with our system. 
N 



98 LETTER IV. 

" Lord were wont to say ; and what Ariston, or John the preshy- 
" tevj said : for I am of the mind that I could not profit so much 
" by reading books, as by attending to those who spake with the 
" living voice." 

The only thing remarkable in this passage, is, that the writer, 
obviously, styles the apostles, presbyters ; and this when speaking 
of ihem, not with the lightness of colloquial familiarity, but as 
oracles, whose authority he acknowledged, whose character he 
revered, and whose sayings he treasured up. Could we have more 
satisfactory evidence that this title, as employed in the primitive 
church, was not considered as expressing official inferiority in those 
to whom it was applied ? 

IrencBus, who was a disciple of Poly carp, and who is said to 
have suffered martyrdom about the year 202 after Christ, is an 
important and decisive witness on the subject before us. The 
foHovving passages are found in his writings. 

Book against Heresies, lib, iii. cap, 2. " When we challenge 
" them (the heretics) to that apostolical tradition which is preserved 
" in the churches through the succession of the presbyters, they 
" oppose the tradition, pretending that they are wiser, not only 
" than the presbyters, but also than the apostlesJ^ 

Lib. iii. cap. 3. '-' The apostolic tradition is present in every 
" church. We can enumerate those who were constituted bishops 
*'by the apostles in the churches, and their successors even to us, 
" who taught no such thing. By showing the tradition and 
"declared faith of the greatest and most ancient church of Borne, 
" which she received from the apostles, and which is come to us 
" through the succession of the bishops, we confound all who 
" conclude otherwise than they ought." 

" The apostles, founding and instructing that church, (the church 
" of Rome) delivered to Linus the Episcopate; Anacletus suc- 
" ceeded him ; after him Clemens obtained the Episcopate from 
" the apostles. To Clement succeeded Evafistus ; to him Alex- 
^' ander ; then Sixtus ; and after him Telesphorus ; then 
*' Hugynus; after him Pius ; then Jnicetusj and when Soter had 
« succeeded Anicetus, then Eleutherius had the episcopate in the 
" twelfth place. By this appointment and instruction that tradition 
« in the church, and publication of the truth, which is from the 
" apostles, is come to us." 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 99 

" Poly carp, also, who was not only taught by the apostles, and 
" conversed with many of those who had seen our Lord; but was 
" also appointed by the apostles, bishop of the Church of Smyrna 
" in Asia.^^ 

Lib. iv. cap. 43. " Obey those presbyters in the Church who 
" have the succession as we have shown from the Apostles; who 
" with the succession of the Episcopate, received the gift of truth, 
" according to the good pleasure of the Father." 

Lib. iv. cap- 44. " We ought, therefore, to adhere to those 
" presbyters who keep the Apostle's doctrine^ and together with 
" thepresbyterial succession, do show forth sound speech. Such 
^'presbyters, the church nourishes; and of such the Prophet 
" says : I will give them princes in peace, and bishops in righ- 
" teousness-"* 

Lib. iv. cap. 53. " True knowledge is the doctrine of the 
" apostles according to the succession of bishops, to whom they 
" delivered the church in every place, which doctrine hath reached 
" us preserved in its most full delivery.'' 

Lib. V. cap. 20. " These are far later than the bishops to 
" whom the apostles delivered the churches : and this we have 
" carefully made manifest in the third book." 

Epistle to Victor, then Bishop of Rome.1i " Those presbytei^s 

* It will be observed that Clemens, in a preceding- pag-e, applies this 
text to the bishops constituted by the apostles. Irenaeus here applies it to 
presbyters, whom he represents as receiving and conveying the apostolic 
succession. 

f JEusebius tells us, that the occasion on which Irenseus wrote this 
letter to Victor^ then bishop of RomCy was as follows. A dispute had 
arisen about the proper time of celebrating Easter. In this dispute, the 
churches of Asia took one side, and the western churches another. 
Both sides declared that they had the most decided apostolical authority 
in their favour: the former pleading the authority o^ John and Philip ; 
and the latter with equal confidence, adducing Peter and Paul in 
justification of their practice. In the progress of this dispute, Victor, 
bishop of the Romish church, issued letters proscribing the churches of 
Asia, and the neighbouring provinces, and endeavouring to cut them off 
from the communion of the faithful. Upon this occasion Irenaeus address- 
ed to him the letter in -question, showing him the imprudence and 
injustice of the step which he had taken. Eccles. Hist. 1. lib. v. cap. 24. 
These facts show, 1. That even in the second century Christians began 



100 LETTER IV. 

" before Soter, who governed the church which thou, Victor, now 
" governest, (the church of Rome) I mean Anicetus, Pius, Hugy- 
" nus, Telesphorus, and Sixtus, they did not observe it ; (he is 
" speaking of the day of keeping Easter) and those presbyters 
" who preceded you, though they did not observe it themselves, 
" yet sent the Eucharist to those of other churches who did ob- 
*' serve it. And when blessed Polycarp, in the days of Anicetus, 
" came to Rome, he did not much persuade Anicetus to observe it, 
" as he {Anicetus) declared that the custom oi the Presbyters who 
'^ were his predecessors should be retained." 

Epistle to Florinus. ^' This doctrine, to speak most cautiously 
" and gently, is not sound. This doctrine disagreeth with the 
" church, and bringeth such as listen to it into extreme impiety." 
(And having mentioned Polycarp, and said some things of him, 
he proceeds :) " I am able to testify before God, that if that 
" holy and apostolical presbyter had heard any such thing, he 
" would at once have exclaimed, as his manner was, '*' Good God ! 
'* into what times hast thou reserved me !" 

The foregoing extracts comprise the strongest passages, in the 
writings of Irenmus that bear on the subject before us. And I 
take for granted that no impartial reader can cast his eye on them 
without perceiving how strongly and unequivocally they support 
our doctrine. This father not only applies the names bishop and 
presbyter to the same persons, but he does it in a way which 
precludes all doubt that he considers them as only different titles 
for the same office. That regular succession from the Apostles 
which in one place he ascribes to bishops, he in another expressly 
ascribes to presbyters. Nay, he explicitly declares XhdX presbyters 
received the succession of the Episcopate. Those ministers whom 
he mentions by name as having presided in the church oi Rome, 

to teach for doctrines the commandments of men. 2. That even so near 
the apostolic age, the authority of the apostles was confidently quoted in 
favour of opposite opinions and practices, plainly showing-, how little 
reliance, in religious controversies, is to be placed on any testimony 
excepting that of the written word of GocL 3. That as early as the time of 
IrenxuSi the principal joas/or or bishop of the church of Borne had begun 
to usurp that pre-eminence, which afterwards attained such a wonderful 
height; and. which all protestants allow to be totally unscriptural and 
antichristian. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. loi 

viz. Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, &c. and whom he in one instance 
calls JBisJiops, he in another denominates presbyters. In one 
paragraph he speaks of the apostolic doctrine as handed down 
through the succession of bishops; in another, he as positively 
affirms that the same apostolic doctrine is handed down through 
the succession of presbyters. In short, the apostolical succession, 
the Episcopal succession, and the preshyterial succession, are 
interchangeably ascribed to tlie same persons, and expressly repre- 
sented as the same thing. What could be more conclusive ? If ^ 
this venerable father had been taking pains to show that he 
employed the terms bishop and presbyter as different titles for the 
office, he could scarcely have kept a more scrupulous and exact 
balance between the dignities, powers, and duties connected with 
each title, and ascribed interchangeably to both. 

But much is made by the friends of prelacy of that portion of 
the foregoing extracts in which Irenceus speaks of the succession 
in particular churches as flowing through single individuals; 
whereas there were, doubtless, a number of presbyters in each of 
the churches to which he refers. " Why," say they, " single out 
" Linus, Anacletus, &c. in the church of Rome, when there were 
" probably many contemporaneous presbyters in that church ?" 
The answer is obvious and easy. One of the presbyters was, no 
doubt, the pastor, or president, and the others his assistants. This 
has often happened in Presbyterian churches, both in ancient and 
modern times. And surely a succession may flow as properly and 
perfectly through a series oi pastors as oi prelates. This at once 
illustrates and harmonizes all that Irenceus has said. 

The testimony of Justin Martyr, who also lived in the second 
century, comes next in order. In describing the mode of worship 
adopted by the Christians in his day, says, " Prayers being ended, 
bread and a cup of water and wine are then brought to the presi- 
dent of the brethren, and he, receiving them, offers praise and 
" glory to the Father of all things through the name of the 
" Son and the Holy Spirit : and he is long in giving thanks, for 
" that we are thought worthy of these blessings. When he has 
" ended prayer, and giving of thanks, the whole people present 
" signify their approbation by saying, amen. The president 
" having given thanks, and the whole people having expressed 
" their approbation, those that are called called among us deacons, 



102 LETTER IV. 

<^ distribute to every one of those that are present, that they may 
" partake of the bread and wine and water, for which thanks have 
" been given ; and to those that are not present, they carry." 
And again, a little afterwards, he tells us, " Upon Sunday, all 
" those who live in cities and country-towns, or villages belonging 
*^ to them, meet together, and the writings of the apostles and 
" prophets are read, as the time will allow. And the reader being 
" silent, (or having ended) the president delivers a discourse, 
" instructing and exhorting to an imitation of those things that are 
" comely. We then all rise up, and pour out prayers. And, as 
" we have related, prayers being ended, bread and wine and water 
" are brought, and the president, as above, gives thanks accord- 
" ing to his ability ;* and the people signify their approbation, 
" saying, amen. Distribution and communication is then made to 
" every one that has joined in giving thanks ; and to those that 
" are absent it is sent by the Deacons. And those that are 
" wealthy and willing, contribute according to their pleasure. 
" What is collected is deposited in the hands of the president, and 
"he helps the orphans and widows, those that are in want by 
" reason of sickness, or any other cause ; those that are in bonds, 
" and that come strangers from abroad. He is the kind guardian 
" of all that are in want. We all assemble on Sunday, because 
" God, dispelling the darkness and informing the first matter, 
" created the world; and also because, upon that day, Jesus Christ 
" our Saviour rose from the dead." Apol. 1. p. 95 — 97* 

It is generally agreed, by Episcopal writers as well as others, 
that the officer several times mentioned in these extracts from 
Justin Martyr, \\z. the 'president, was the 6h9/«ojo of the church, 
whose public service is described. Now as this venerable father 

* This passage is one among numerous testimonies with which anti- 
quity abounds, that there were no Forms of Prayer used in the primitive 
church. Each pastor or bishop led the devotions of his congTegation 
according to his ability. For the first three himdred years after Christ, no 
trace of prescribed liturgies is to be found. The liturgies which go under 
the names of Peter^ Marh, Jamesj Clement, and Basil, have been given 
up as forgeries, even by the most respectable Episcopal writers. See 
Jl Discourse concerning Liturgies, by the Rev. David Clarkson, a Presby- 
terian minister of England, the venerable ancestor of the family of that 
name in this city. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 103 

is obviously describing the manner in which each particular con- 
gregation conducted its worship in his day, it follows, that in the 
time of Jws/zn, every congregation had its bishop: or, in other 
words, that this was a title applied in primitive times to the ordi- 
nary pastors of particular churches. 

The testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, who flourished at the 
close of the second century, is likewise in favour of our doctrine 
concerning the christian ministry. Clement was a presbyter of the 
church in Alexandria, and a prodigy of learning in his day. The 
following extracts from his writings will enable you to judge in 
what light he ought to be considered as a witness on this subject. 

Pcedagog, lib. 1. " We who have rule over the churches, 
** are shepherds or pastors, after the image of the Good Shep- 
" herd." Ibid. lib. iii. In proof of the impropriety of women 
wearing foreign hair, among other arguments he uses this, " On 
*^ whom, or what will the presbyter impose his hand ? To whom 
'^ or what will he give his blessing ? Not to the woman who is 
" adorned, but to strange locks of hair, and through them to an- 
" other's head." Ibid. " Many other commands, appertaining 
" to select persons, are written in the sacred books 5 some to 
^^ presbyters, some to bishops, some to deacons, and some to 
" widows." 

Stromat. lib. i. ** Just so in the church, the presbyters are 
" intrusted with the dignijied ministry ; the deacons with the sub- 
" ordinate."" Ibid. lib. iii. Having cited the apostolic directions 
concerning marriage, in 1 Tim. v. 14. &c. he adds, " But he must 
" be the husband of one wife only, whether he be ci presbyter, or 
" deacon, or layman, if he would use matrimony without repre- 
" hension." Again — " What can they say to these things who 
" inveigh against marriage ? Since the apostle enjoins, that the 
" bishop to be set over the church be one who rules his own house 
" well." Ibid. lib. vi. " This man is in reality 'd presbyter, and 
" a true deacon of the purpose of God — not ordained of men, nor 
" because a presbyter, therefore esteemed a righteous man ; but 
" because a righteous man, therefore now reckoned in the pres- 
" bytery; and though here upon earth he hath not been honoured 
" with the chief seat, yet he shall sit down among the four and 
" twenty thrones, judging the people, as John says in the Revela- 
" tion." Again, Ibid. " Now in the church here, the progress 



104 LETTER IV. 

" sions of bishops, presbyters, deacons, T deem to be imitations of 
" the evangelical glory, and of that dispensation which the Scrip- 
" tures tell us they look for, who following the steps of the apos- 
" ties, have lived according to the Gospel in the perfection of 
" righteousness. These men, the apostle writes, being taken up 
'* into the clouds, shall first minister as deacons, then be admitted 
" to a rank in the presbytery, according to the progression in 
" glory : for glory differeth from glory, until they grow up to a 
" perfect man." Again—" Of that service of God about which 
" men are conversant, one is that which makes them better : the 
" other ministerial. In like manner in the church, the presbyters 
" retain the form of that kind which makes men better ; "and the 
" deacons that which is ministerial. In both these ministries, the 
" angels serve God in the dispensation of earthly things." Again, 
in his book, Quis dives salvandus sit, he has the following singular 
passage : " Hear a fable, and yet not a fable, but a true story 
" reported of John the apostle, delivered to us, and kept in» 
" memory. After the death of the tyrant, when he (John) had 
" returned to Ephesus, out of the isle of Patmos, being desired, he 
" went to the neighbouring nations, where he appointed bishops, 
" where he set in order whole cities, and where he chose by lot 
" unto the ecclesiastical function, of those who had been pointed 
" out by the Spirit as by name. When he was come to a certain 
*^ city, not far distant, the name of which some mention, and 
" among other things had refreshed the brethren ; beholding a 
'' young man of a portly body, a gracious countenance, and fervent 
" mind, he looked upon the bishop, who was set over all, and said, 
" I commit this youn^ man to thy custody, in presence of the 
" church, and Christ bearing me witness. When he had received 
" the charge, and promised the performance of all things relative 
" to it, John again urged, and made protestation of the same 
" thing; and afterwards departed to Ephesus. And the presbyter, 
" taking the young man, brought him to his own house, nourished, 
" comforted, and cherished him ; and at length baptized him." 

From these extracts you will perceive, that Clement, though a 
presbyter of the church of Alexandria, speaks of himself as one of 
its governors, and claims the title of a " shepherd or pastor, after 
the image of the good Shepherd," a title which the greater part of 
episcopal writers acknowledge to have been given in the primitive 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 105 

church to the highest order of ministers. He represents the 
presbyters as intrusted with the dignified ministry, and the 
deacons with the subordinate, without suggesting any thing of a 
more dignified order. He applies the apostolic direction in 
1 Tim. ii. 4. in one place to bishops and in another to presbyters, 
which would have no pertinency if he did not refer in both cases 
to the same order of ministers. He compares the grades of church 
officers with the orders of angels ; but we read only of angels and 
archangels. It is observable also, that the person to whom John 
committed the young man, is in one place called a bishop, and 
immediately afterwards a presbyter, which we cannot suppose 
would have been done, had the superiority of order, for which 
prelatists contend, been known in his day. It is further supposed 
by some, that when Clement speaks of imposition of hands on the 
heads of those females who wore false hair, he alludes to the rite 
of Confirmation. If this be so, which is extremely doubtful, it is 
the first hint we have, in all antiquity, of this rite being practised 5 
but, unfortunately for the Episcopal cause, the imposition of hands 
here mentioned, is ascribed io presbyters. " On whom or what will 
the ^res6yi?er impose his hands?" From these circumstances, we 
may confidently infer, that Clement knew nothing of an order of 
bishops, distinct from and superior to presbyters, and that the 
purity of the apostolic age was not, when he wrote, in this respect, 
materially corrupted. 

It is readily granted, that this father once speaks of " bishops, 
^^ presbyters, and deacons,^' and once more, inverting the order, of 
^^ presbyters, bishops, and deacons,'' He also represents these as 
" progressions which imitate the angelic glory," and refers to the 
" chief seat in the presbytery." But none of these modes of 
expression afford the least countenance to the Episcopal doctrine. 
He no where tells us that there was any difference of order, in his 
day, between bishops and presbyters ; and far less does he convey 
any hint, that only the former ordained and confirmed. He says 
nothing of either of these rites, directly and indirectly, in any of 
his works. And when the friends of Episcopacy suppose, that 
the mere use of the words bishop and presbyters, establishes their 
claim, the/only adopt the convenient method of taking the point 
in dispute for granted, without a shadow of proof. If we suppose 
the bishop, alluded to by Clement, to be the pastor of the churchy 
O 



106 LETTER IV. 

the president or presiding presbyter, and the other presbyters to be 
his assistants^ it will account for the strongest expressions above 
recited, and will entirely agree with the language of scripture, and 
of all the preceding fathers. 

I have now gone through the testimony of those fathers who 
lived and wrote within the first two centuries after Christ,* the 
limits which 1 prescribed to myself at the beginning of this letter. 
And I can solemnly assure you, my brethren, that the foregoing 
extracts, besides what I have deemed favourable to our own cause, 
also contain, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the strongest 
passages that are to be found, within that period, in support of 
diocesan Episcopacy. I may confidently challenge the most 
zealous Episcopalian to produce, out of the writers of those times, 
a single sentence which speaks more fully or decidedly in favour 
of his system, than those which have been presented. If there be 
any such, I have not been so fortunate as to meet with them ; nor 
have the ablest Episcopal writers with whom I have been conver- 
sant, appeared to know of their existence. You have before you, 
not merely a specimen of those quotations which they consider as 
most favourable to their cause, but in fact, the strongest and best 
passages for their purpose, that they are able to produce. 

Let me, then, appeal to your candour, whether the assertions 
made at the beginning of this letter, are not fully supported. Have 
you seen a single passage which proves that Christian Bishops, 
within the first two centuries, v/ere, in fact, an order of clergy 
distinct from {hose presbyters who were authorized to preach and 
administer sacraments, and superior to them ? Have you seen a 
sentence which furnishes even probable testimony, that these 
bishops received, as such, a new and superior ordination; that 
each bishop had under him a number of congregations with their 
pastors, whom he governed ; and that with this superior order 

* The well informed reader will observe, that I have taken no notice 
of certain writings, called the Apostolical Canons, and the Jipostolical 
Constitutions, which have been sometimes quoted in this controversy. 
They are so generally considered as altogether unworthy of credit, that 
I deem no apology necessary for this omission. When Epis^pal writers 
of the greatest eniinence style them '* impudent forgeries," and their 
author *• a cheat, unworthy of credit," I may well be excused for passing 
them by 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 107 

exclusively was deposited the power of ordination ? Have you 
found even plausible evidence in support of any one of these articles 
of Episcopal belief? Above all, have you found a syllable which 
intimates \\rAi these were not only y*ac/s, but also that they were 
deemed of so much importance as to be essential to the very 
existence of the church ? Even supposing you had found such 
declarations in some or a// of the early fathers; what then? 
Historic fact is not Divine institution. But have you found the 
fact ? I will venture to say, you have not. We are so far from 
being told by the writers within this period, " with one voice," that 
bishops are a superior order to preaching presbyters^ that not one 
among them says any thing like it. Instead of finding them 
" unanimously," and " constantly" declaring that the right of 
ordination is exclusively vested in bishops as a superior order, we 
cannot find a single passage in which such information, or any 
thing that resembles it, is conveyed. And, with respect to con- 
frmation, which is claimed as one of the appropriate duties of the 
diocesan bishop, it is not so much as once mentioned by any 
authentic writer, within the first two hundred years, as a cere- 
mony which was in use at all,* and much less as appropriated 
to a particular order of clergy. 

On the contrary, we have seen that these writers, with remark- 
able uniformity, apply the tef ms bishop, president, shepherd, pastor y 
interchangeably to the same officers ; that the apostolical succession 
is expressly ascribed to presbyters ; that a bishop is represented as 
performing duties which would involve absurdity on any other 
supposition than that of his being the pastor of a single flock ; and 
that in all cases in which any distinction is made between bishops 
and presbyters, it evidently points out, either the distinction 
between preaching and ruling presbyters ; or that between those 
who were fixed pastors of churches, and those who, though in full 
orders, and of the same rank, had no pastoral charge, and until 
they obtained such a place, acted the part of assistants to pastors. 
In short, when the testimony of the early fathers is thoroughly sifted, 
it will be found to yield nothing to the Episcopal cause but simply 

* Unless the doubtful passage before quoted from Clement Jlexandri- 
nus, may be sup])osedto refer to this rite: and if so, then it will follow, 
from that passage, that, la the days of Clemens, presbyters confirmed. 



108 LETTER IV. 

the title bishop. Now when the advocates of Episcopacy find this 
title in the New Testament evidently applied to presbyters, they 
gravely tell us that the mere title is nothing, and that the interchange 
of these titles is nothing, but that immediately after the apostolic 
age, the title of bishop became appropriated to the higher order. 
But when we find precisely the same titles in the early fathers, and 
the same interchange of these titles, they are compelled either to 
alter their tone, and to abandon their former reasoning, or else to 
submit to the mortification of being condemned out of their own 
mouths. 

The friends of prelacy have often, and with much apparent 
confidence, challenged us to produce out of all the early fathers, a 
single instance of an ordination performed by presbyters. Those 
who give this challenge might surely be expected, in all decency 
and justice, to have a case of Episcopal ordination ready to be 
brought forward, from the same venerable records. But have they 
ever produced such a case ? They have not. Nor can they pro- 
duce it. As there is, unquestionably, no instance mentioned in 
scripture of any person, with the title of bishop, performing an 
ordination ; so it is equally certain that no such instance has yet 
been found in any christian writer within \\vq first two centuries. 
Nor can a single instance be produced of a person already ordained 
as a presbyter, receiving a new and second ordination as bishop. 
To find a precedent favourable to their doctrine, the advocates of 
Episcopacy have been under the necessity of wandering into 
periods when the simplicity of the Gospel had, in a considerable 
degree, given place to the devices of men ; and when the man of 
sin had commenced that system of unhallowed usurpation, which 
which for so many centuries corrupted and degraded the church 
of God. 

Such is the result of the appeal to the early fathers. They are 
so far from giving even a semblance of support to the Episcopal 
claim, that, like the Scriptures, they every where speak a language 
wholly inconsistent with it, and favourable only to the doctrine of 
ministerial parity. What then shall we say of the assertions so 
often and so confidently made, that the doctrine of a superior order 
oi bishops has been maintained in the church, " from the earliest 
" ages," in " the ages immediately succeeding the apostles," and 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 109 

by " all the fathers, from the beginning ?" What shall we say of 
the assertion, that the Scriptures, interpreted by the writings of the 
early fathers, decidedly support the same doctrine ? I will only 
say, that those who find themselves able to justify such assertions, 
must have been much more successful in discovering early autho- 
rities in aid of their cause, than the most diligent, learned, and 
keen-sighted of their predecessors. 



( 110 ) 



LETTER V. 

TESTIMONY OF SOME OF THE LATER FATHERS. 

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

In citing tlie fathers, it was necessary to draw a distinct line 
between those who are to be admitted as credible witnesses, and 
those whose testimony is to be suspected. I have accordingly 
drawn this line at the close of the second century. About this 
time as will be afterwards shown, among many other corruptions, 
that of clerical imparity appeared in the church ; and even the 
Papacy, as we have before seen, had begun to urge its anti- 
chrislian claims. From the commencement of the third century, 
therefore, every witness on the subject of Episcopacy is to be 
received with caution. As it is granted, on all hands, that the 
mystery of iniquity had then begun to work : as great and good 
men are known, from this time to have countenanced important 
errors, errors acknowledged to be such by Episcopalians as well as 
ourselves: as uncommanded rites and forms, both of Jewish and 
Pagan origin, began to be introduced into Christian worship, and 
to have a stress laid upon them as unreasonable as it was unwar- 
ranted ; we are compelled to examine the writers from the com- 
mencement of the third century downwards, with the jealousy 
which we feel towards men who stand convicted of having departed 
from the simplicity of the gospel ; and concerning some of whom 
it is perfectly well known, that many of their alleged yac^s are as 
false as their principles. 

But though the fathers from the beginning of the third century 
are not to be contemplated with the same respect, nor relied upon 
with the same confidence as their predecessors ; still they deserve 
much attention ; and in the perusal of their writings, we shall find 
many passages which confirm the doctrine and the statements 
exhibited in llie foregoing pages. We shall sometimes, indeed, 
meet with m^des of expression and occasional hints, which indi- 
cate that the love of pre-eminence, which has so much disturbed 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. m 

the church as well as the s(ate, had begun to form into a system its 
plans and claims. Not a sentence, however, can be found until 
the fourth century, which gives any intimation that bishops were 
considered as a different order from presbyters; or that the former 
were peculiarly invested with the ordaining power. Let us then 
inquire in what manner some of these later fathers speak on the 
subject under consideration. 

TertuUian began to flourish about the year 200. His writings 
are voluminous, and their authenticity is generally admitted. And 
though he has been often quoted by our opponents in this contro- 
versy, as a witness favourable to their cause, yet if I mistake not, 
a little attention to the hw hints which he drops on this subject, 
will show that his testimony is directly of an opposite kind. The 
following passages are found in his works. 

Apolog, " In our religious assemblies certain approved elders 
^^ preside y who have obtained their office by merit and not by 
" bribes." De Corona. " We receive the sacrament of the Lord's 
" Supper from the hands of none but the preside7its of our assem- 
" blies." In the same work, cap. 3. he informs us, that the Chris- 
tians among whom he dwelt, were in the habit of receiving the 
Lord's Supper three times in each week, viz. on Wednesdays and 
Fridays, as well as on the Lord's days. Ibid. " Before we go 
" to the water to be baptized, we first in the church under the 
" hand of the president, profess to renounce the devil." De 
Baptismo. " It remains that I remind you of the custom of 
" giving and receiving baptism. The right of giving this ordi- 
" nance belong to the highest priest, who is the bishop', then 
" to elders and deacons ; yet not without the authority of the 
" bishop, for the sake of the honour of the church. This being 
" secured, peace is secured j otherwise, even the laity have the 
" right." He then goes on to observe, that although the laity 
have the right of baptizing in cases of necessity, yet " that they 
" ought to be modest, and not to assume to themselves the ap- 
" pointed office of the bishop. De Hceretic. " Let them (the 
" heretics) produce the original of their churches ; let them turn 
" over the roll of their bishops ; so running down in a continued 
" succession, that their first bishop had some one of the apostles, 
" or of the apostolic men (who persevered with the apostles) for his 
" author and predecessor. Thus the apostolical churches have 



112 LETTER V. 

" their roUsj as the church of Smyrna has Polycarp constituted 
" there by John, and the church of Rome, Clement ordained by 
" Peter. And the other churches can tell who were ordained 
" bishops over them by the apostles, and who have been their suc- 
" cessors to this day. 

These quotations are the strongest that Episcopalians produce 
from Tertullian in support of their system. Let us examine them. 
This father tells us, that in his day, presbyters presided in their 
assemblies ; that the presidents of their assemblies alone, in ordi- 
nary cases, baptized; and that they received the Lord's Supper 
from no other hands but those of the presidents : and at the same 
time he informs us, that administering baptism is the appropriate 
right of the highest Priest, who is the bishop. What are we to infer 
from this representation, but that presbyter, president, and bishop, 
are employed by Tertullian as titles of the same men ? Again ; 
this father, while he declares that each bishop or president per- 
formed all the baptisms for his flock, and that they received the 
eucharist from no other hands than his, mentions that they were 
in the habit of attending on the eucharist three times in each week. 
Now the man who performed every baptism in the church under 
his care, and who administered the Lord's Supper three times every 
week to all the members of his church, could ohly have been the 
pastor of one congregation. To suppose that any minister, how- 
ever great his activity and zeal, could statedly perform this service 
for more than a single church, involves a manifest impossibility. 
Nor is this all : absurdity is added to impossibility, by supposing, 
as Episcopalians must, that the bishop did all this when he had 
many presbyters under him, who were all invested by the very 
nature of their office, with the power of administering both sacra- 
ments as well as himself. 

But it will be asked — why then is the bishop called by Tertullian 
the highest Priest? Does not this expression indicate that there 
was Ofie priest in a church, at that time, who had some kind of 
superiority over the other priests of the same church ? I answer, 
this expression implies no superiority o{ order. The highest priest 
might have been the only pastor of the church ; nor is there any 
thing in the title inconsistent with this supposition. To draw a 
conclusion either in favour of diocesan Episcopacy, or against it, 
from language so entirely ambiguous in its import, is surely more 



TESTIMONY OP THE FATHERS. 113 

calculated to expose the weakness than to exhibit the strength of 
the cause in which it is adduced. Besides ; Tertullian informs us 
that this bishopy or highest priest, was alone invested with the 
right of baptizing and administering the Lord''s Supper ; that the 
bishop might, when he thought proper, empower elders and deacons 
to baptize ; and that even private Christians, who bore no office 
in the church, might also baptize in cases of necessity. But still 
he declares that administering baptism was "the appointed office 
of the bishop," and that they received the Lord's Supper from no 
other hands than his. Either, then, Tertullian writes in a very 
confused and contradictory manner, or else both the bishop and 
eldei's mentioned by him are officers of a very different character 
from those who are distinguished by the same titles in modern 
Episcopal churches. His highest priest was evidently no other 
than the ^as^or of a single congregation; the president of the 
assembly, and oi the -presbytery or eldership, which belonged, like 
himself, to a particular church. 

With respect to the passage quoted above, in which this 
father speaks of" the roll of bishops,^' and of the line of bishops 
running down in a continual succession, it is nothing to the purpose 
of those who adduce it to support diocesan Episcopacy. What 
kind of bishops were those of whom Tertullian here speaks ? were 
Xhey parochial ox diocesan ? If we consider them, as other passages 
in his writings compel us to consider them, as the pastors of single 
congregations, then the obvious construction of the passage is 
perfectly agreeable to Presbyterian principles. But, v/hat estab- 
lishes this construction is, that Irenceus, who was nearly contem- 
porary with Tertullian, in a passage quoted in a preceding page, 
in a similar appeal to the heretics, speaks of the list or roll of 
presbyters, and represents the apostolical succession as flowing 
through the line of presbyters ; an incontestible proof that the 
words bishop and presbyter were used by both these fathers, as 
convertible titles for the same office. 

Cyprian, the venerable bishop of Carthage, who flourished and 
wrote about the year 250, is often quoted by Episcopal writers as 
a strong witness in their favour. The following quotations will 
show in what light his testimony ought to be viewed. Epist. Y3, 
*' Whence we understand, that it is lawful for none but the presi- 
" dents of the church to baptize and grant remission of sins." 
P 



114 LETTER V. 

And again, Epist. 67- " The people should not flatter themselves 
" that they are free from fault, when they communicate with a 
" sinful priest, and give their consent to the presidency of a wicked 
*^ bishop. Wherefore a flock that is obedient to God's commands, 
" and fears him, ought to separate from a wicked bishop, and not 
" to join in the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest ; since the flock 
" or people has the chief power of choosing worthy priests and 
*^ refusing unworthy ones, which we see comes down to us from 
" divine authority, that ihe priest should be chosen in the presence 
*' of the flock, and in the sight of all, that he may be approved as 
"worthy and fit, by the judgment and testimony of all. This is 
" observed, according to divine authority, in the Acts of the Apos- 
" ties, when Fe/er, speaking to the people concerning the ordination 
" a bishop in the place oi' Judas ; it is said Peter rose up in the 
*' midst of the disciples, the whole multitude being met together. 
*' And we may take notice that the apostles observed this, not only 
" in the ordination of bishops and priests, but also of deacons, 
<' concerning whom it is writen in the Acts, that the twelve gathered 
" together the whole multitude of the disciples, and said unto 
" them., &c. which was, therefore, so diligently and carefully 
" transacted before all the people, lest any unworthy person should, 
" by secret arts, creep into the ministry of the altar, or the sacer- 
" dotal station. This, therefore, is to be observed and held as 
'^ founded on divine tradition and apostolic practice ; which is also 
" kept up with us, and almost in all the provinces, that in order to 
<< the right performance o( ordination, the neighbouring bishops of 
" the same province meet with that flock to which the bishop is 
" ordained, and that the bishop be chosen in presence of the people, 
" who know every one's life, and are acquainted with their whole 
" conversation. Which we see was done by you in the ordination 
" of Sabinus, our colleague, that the Episcopacy was conferred on 
"him by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood, and of the bishops 
" who were met there, and wrote to you concerning him." 

Epist, 32. " Through all the vicissitudes of time, the ordination 
" of bishops, and the constitution of the church, are so handed 
" down, that the church is built on the bishops, and every act of 
" the church is ordered and managed by them. Seeing, therefore, 
" this is founded on the law of God, I wonder that some should be 
" so rash and insolent as to write to me in the name of the church, 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. ]15 

"seeing a church consists of a bishop, clergy, and all that stand 
" faithful." 

Tract. De Unitat. Eccles. " Our Lord speaks to Peter, / 
" say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock Itvill build my 
" church, &c. Upon one he builds his church ; and though he 
"gave an equal power to all his apostles, yet that he might 
" manifest unity, he ordered the beginning of that unity to proceed 
" from one person. The rest of the apostles were the satne that 
" Peter was, being endued with ihe same fellowship both of honour 
" and power. But ihe beginning proceeds from unity, that the 
" church may be shown to be one." 

Epist.3. " The deacons ought to remember, that the Lord hath 
^•' chosen apostles, that is, bishops and presidents ; but the apostles 
" constituted deacons, as the ministers of their Episcopacy and of 
" the church." 

These extracts are remarkable. Though they are precisely 
those which Episcopalians generally adduce from Cyprian in sup- 
port of their cause j yet the discerning reader will perceive that all 
their force lies against that cause. It is evident from these extracts, 
that bishop and president are used by this father as words of the 
same import ; that the officer thus denominated was the only one 
who had the power of administering baptism^ that the bishop in 
Cyprian^s days was chosen by the people of his charge, was 
ordained over a particular ^ocA;, and received his ordination in the 
presence of that jlock. All these circumstances agree perfectly 
with the Presbyterian doctrine, that the bishop is the pastor of a 
single congregation ; but wear a most unnatural and improbable 
aspect when applied to a diocesan bishop, having a number of 
flocks or congregations with their pastors, under his care. 

It is readily granted, that Cyprian speaks of the church of 
Carthage as having several presbyters or elders as well as deacons, 
and that he distinguishes between presbyters of that church and 
himself their bishop. But how many of these were ruling elders, 
and how many were empowered to teach and administer sacra- 
ments, as well as to rule ; and in what respects he differed from 
the other presbyters, whether only as a standing chairman or 
president among them, as seems to be intimated by his calling 
them repeatedly his colleagues or co-presbyters, we are no where 
informed. All we know is, that writing to them in his exile, he 



116 LETTER V. 

requests them, durmg his absence, to perform his duties as well as 
their own ; which looks as if Cyprian considered the presbyters 
of his church as clothed with full power to perform all those acts 
which were incumbent on him as bishop, and consequenlly as of 
the same order with himself. 

Again ; when Cyprian speaks of the church as " being built on 
the bishops," and of all the acts of the church as being managed by 
by them, Episcopalians hastily triumph, as if this were decided 
testimony in their favour. But their triumph is premature. Does 
Cyprian, in these passages, refer to diocesan ov parochial bishops ? 
l^o prelates, who had the government of a diocese, containing a 
number of congregations and their ministers ; or to pastors of 
single flocks ? The latter, from the whole strain of his epistles, is 
evidently his meaning. He no where gives the least hint of having 
more than one congregation under his own care. He represents 
his whole church as or^m^xWy joining together in the celebration 
of the eucharist. He declares his resolution to do nothing without 
the council of his elders, and the consent of his/ocA:. He affirms 
that every church, when properly organized, consists of a bishop, 
clergy, and the brotherhood. All these representations apply 
only io parochial, and by no means to diocesan Episcopacy. For 
if such officers belong to every church, or organized religious 
society, then we must conclude that by the clergy of each church, 
as distinguished from the bishop, is meant those elders who 
assisted the pastor in the discharge of parochial duty. It is well 
known that Cyprian applies the term clergy to all sorts of church 
officers. In his epistles, not only the presbyters, or elders, but 
also the deacons, sub-deacons, readers and acolyths are all spoken 
of as belonging to the clergy. The ordination of such persons, 
(for it seems in his time they were all formally ordained) he calls 
ordinationes clericce; and the letters which he transmitted by 
them, he styles literce clericce. The same fact may be clearly 
established from the writings of Ambrose, Hilary and Epiphanius, 
and also from the canons of the council o( Nice. When Cyprian, 
then, speaks of a church, when properly organized, as consisting 
o( a, bishop, clergy, and brotherhood, he not only speaks a language 
which is strictly reconcilable with Presbyterian church govern- 
ment ; but which can scarcely be reconciled with any thing else. 
For it is alone descriptive of a pastor or overseer of a single 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 117 

church, with his elders and deacons to assist in their appropriate 
functions. But there is one passage in the above cited extracts, 
which completely establishes the position, that Cyprian considered 
bishops and preaching presbyters as of the same order. He 
recognizes the same kind of pre-eminence in bishops over presby- 
tersy as Peter had over the other apostles. But of what nature 
was this superiority ? He shall speak for himself. " The rest of 
" the apostles," says he, " were the same that Peter was, being 
" endued wilh the same fellowship, both of honour and power ^ 
" but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the church may be 
" shown to be one." In other words, every bishop is of the same 
orc?er with those presbyters who labour in the word and doctrine : 
and only holds, in consequence of his being vested with a pastoral 
charge, the distinction of president or chairman among them. 
That I do not mistake Cyprian^s meaning, you will readily be 
persuaded, when I inform you that Mr. Dodwell, that learned and 
able advocate for Episcopacy, expressly acknowledges, that 
Cyprian makes Peter the type of every bishop, and the rest of the 
apostles the type of every presbyter. 

Firmilian, bishop of Cesarea, who was contemporary with 
Cyprian, in an epistle addressed to the latter, has the following 
passage. Cyprian. Epist. 75. " But the other heretics also, if 
" they separate from the church, can have no power or grace, 
" since all power and grace are placed in the church, where 
" Presbyters preside, in whom is vested the power of baptizing 
** and imposition of hands, and ordinationJ^ This passage needs 
no comment. It not only represents the right to baptize and 
the right to ordain as going together; but it also expressly ascribes 
both to the elders who preside in the churches. 

The testimony of Jerome on this subject is remarkably explicit 
and decisive. This distinguished father, who flourished about the 
year 380, and who was acknowledged by the whole Christian 
world to be one of the most pious and learned men of his day,* 
does not merely convey his opinion in indirect terms and occa- 
sional hints, as most of the preceding fathers had done, but in the 



* The celebrated ^rasmws declared concerning /erome, that " he was, 
" without controversy, the most learned of all Christians, the prince of 
" divines, and for eloquence that he excelled Cicero.*' 



118 LETTER V. 

most express and formal manner. In his Commentary on Titus 
we find the following passage. " Let us diligently attend to the 
" words of the apostle, saying, That thou mayest ordain elders 
" in every city, as I have appointed thee. Who discoursing in 
" what follows, what sort of presbyter is to be ordained, saith, If 
" any one be blameless, the husband of one loife, &c. afterwards 
" adds, For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God, 
" &c. A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop ; and before 
" there were, by the devil's instinct, parties in religion, and it was 
«' said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of 
" Cephas,^ the churches were governed by the common council of 
" presbyters. But afterwards, when every one thought that those 
" whom he baptized were rather his than Christ's, it was deter- 
'^ mined through the whole world, that one of the presbyters 
" should be set above the rest, to whom all care of the church 
" should belong, that the seeds of schism might be taken away. 
" If any suppose that it is merely our opinion, and not that of the 
" Scriptures, that bishop and presbyter are the same, and that one 
" is the nj\me of age, the other of oflice, let him read the words of 
" the apostles to the Philippians, saying, Paul and Timothy, the 



* Some Episcopal writers have attempted, from this allusion of Jerome 
to 1 Cor. i. 12, to infer that he dates Episcopacy as early as the dispute 
at Corinth, to which this passag-e refers. But this inference is effectually 
refuted by two considerations. In the Jirst place Jerome adduces proof 
that bishop diud presbyter were originally the same, from portions of the 
New Testament which were certainly written after the first epistle to the 
Corinthians. In the second place, that language of the apostle, one saith 
T am of Paul, and another, I am of JlpoUos, &c, has been familiarly 
applied in every age, by way of allusion, to ac/ua/ divisions in the church. 
And were those who put the construction on Jerome which I am oppos- 
ing, a little better acquainted with his writings, they would know that 
in another place he himself applies the same passage to some disturbers 
of the church's peace in the fourth century. Suppose any one were 
describing a division in a church in the nineteenth century, and were 
to say, as has been said a thousand times since the days of Paul, " They 
are all at strife, one saying, ' I am of Paul, and another I am of 
Apollos, &c.' " how would he be understood ? as referring to that Scrip- 
ture by way of allusion, or as meaning to say that the division which he 
described, took place in the days oi Paul? 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 119 

i^ the servants of Jesus Christ) to all the saints in Christ Jesus 

" that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons. Philippi is 

*' a city of Macedonia^ and certainly, in one city there could not 

" be more than one bishop, as they are Jiow styled. But at that 

" time they called the same men bishops whom they called presSy- 

" ters ; therefore, he speaks indifferently of bishops as of presby- 

" ters. This may seem even yet, doubtful to some, till it be proved 

" by another testimony. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles, 

" that when the apostle cawje to Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and 

" and called the presbyters of that churchy to whom, among other 

" things, he said. Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over 

" whom the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church 

^^ of God which he hath purchased with his own blood. Here 

" observe diligently, that calling together the presbyters of one 

" city, Ephesus, he afterwards styles the same persons bishops, 

" If any will receive that epistle which is written in the name of 

" Paul to the Hebrews, there also the care of the church is equally 

" divided among many, since he writes to the people. Obey them 

" that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they 

" tcatchfor your souls as those that must give an account, that 

" they may do it with joy and not with grief, for that is 

" unprofitable for you. And Peter (so called from the firmness 

" of his faith) in his epistle, saith, The presbyters which are among 

" you I exhort, whom am also a presbyter, and a witness of the 

^^ sufferings of Chi ist, and also a partaker of the glory that shall 

" be revealed. Feed the flock of God which is among you, not 

" by constraint but willingly. These things I have written to show, 

" that among the diUzvenis, presbyters and bishops were the same. 

" But, by little and little, that all the seeds of dissension might 

" be plucked up, the whole care was devolved on one. As, there- 

*^ fore, the presbyters know, that by the custom of the church they 

" are subject to him who is their president, so let bishopn, know, 

<^ that they are ^howe presbyters more by the custom of the church 

" than by the true dispensation of Christ ; and that they ought to 

" rule the church in common, imitating Moses, who, when he 

" might alone rule the people of Israel, chose seventy with whom 

'' he might judge the people." 

In Jerome's epistle to Evagrius, he speaks on the same subject 



120 LETTER V. 

in the following pointed language.* " I hear that a certain person 
<< has broken out into such folly that he prefers deacons before 
'* presbyters, that is before bishops : for when the apostle clearly 
" teaches that presbyters and bishops were the same, who can 
<* endure it, that a minister of tables and of widows should 
<* proudly exalt himself above those at whose prayers the body 
" and blood of Christ is made ? Do you seek for authority? hear 
" that testimony : Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to 
" all the sainisin Christ Jesus that are at Philippi,ioith the bishops 
" and deacons. Would you have another example ? In the Acts of 
*' the Apostles, Paid speaks thus to the priests of one church — 
<^ Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy 
'* Ghost hath made you bishops, that you govern the church which 
^^ he hath purchased with his own blood. And lest any should 
" contend about there being a plurality of bishops in one church, 
" hear also another testimony, by which it may most manifestly be 
" proved, that a bishop and presbyter are the same—For this cause 
" left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things 
" that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city, as I have 
" appointed thee. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, 
" ^c. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God. And to 
** Timothy — Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given 
" thee by prophecy, by the laying on of the hands of the presby- 
" iejy. And Peter also, in his first epistle, saith, the presbyters 

* Among- the numerous expedients to g;et rid of this decisive testimony 
of Jerome, one is, to represent that the epistle to Evagrius was written 
in 3i Jit of passion, in which the worthy father had particular inducements 
to magnify the office of presbyter as much as possible. To suppose that 
a man of Jerome's learning and piety, even in a fit of anger, would delibe- 
rately commit to writing a doctrine directly opposite to " the faith of the 
universal church from the beginning," and that too on a point of funda- 
mental importance to the very existence of the Redeemer's kingdom on 
earth; that he should so earnestly insist upon it, and make such formal and 
solemn appeals to Scripture in support of it, is a supposition which can 
only be made by those who are driven to the utmost extremity for a sub- 
terfuge. Biit how shall we account for Jerome^s having maintained the 
same doctrine, illustrated by the same reasonings, and fortified by the same 
Scriptural quotations, in his commentary on Titus, before quoted, which 
must be supposed to have been written with much reflection and serious- 
ness, and which was solemnly delivered as a legacy to the church, by 
one of her most illustrious ministers? 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 121 

" which are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter, and a 
" imfness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the 
^^ glory that shall he revealed; to rule the flock of Christ, and to 
" inspect it, not of constraint, but tcillingly according to God 5 
" which is more significantly expressed in the Greek 'E.ndxo'KwvTsg^ 
" that isj superintending it, whence the name of bishop is drawn- 
"Do the testimonies of such men seem small to thee ? Let the 
" evangelical trumpet sound, the son of thunder, whom Jesus loved 
" much, who drank the streams of doctrine from our SaviourV 
" breast. The presbyter to the elect lady and her children, whom 
" I love ill the truth. And in another epistle, the presbyter to the 
" beloved Gains, whom I love in the truth. But that one was after- 
" ivards chosen, who should be set above the rest, was done as a 
" remedy against schism ; lest every one drawing the Church of 
" Christ to himself, should break it in pieces. For at Alexandria, 
" from Mark, the Evangelist, to Heraclas and Dionysius, the 
" bishops thereof, the presbyters always named one, chosen from 
" among them, and placed in an higher degree, bishop. As if an 
" army should make an emperor ; or the deacons should choose 
" one of themselves whom they knew to be most diligent, and call 
" him arch-deacon.^' And a little afterwards, in the same epistle, 
" he says, " Presbyter and bishop, the one is the name, of ao^e, the 
" other oi dignity : Whence in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, 
" there is mention made of the ordination oi bishop and deacon, 
" but not of presbyters , because the presbyter is included in the 
" bishop.^' 

After perusing this most explicit and unequivocal testimony ; a 
testimony which one would imagine could scarcely have been more 
formal or more decisive ; you will be surprised to learn that some 
Episcopal writers have ventured to say, that Jerome merely offers 
a conjecture, that in the apostle's days, bishop and presbyter were 
the same. If the extracts above stated be the language of conjecture 
I should be utterly at a loss to know what is the language of 
assertion nnd proof. In what manner could he have spoken more 
clearly or more positively ? But I will not insult your understand- 
ings by pursuing the refutation of this pretence. From the 
foregoing extracts, it is abundantly apparent : 

1. That the interpretation given, in my second letter, of those 
passages of Scripture which represent bishops and presbyters as 
Q 



122 LETTER V. 

the samey in office and power, as well as in titlsy is by no means a 
novel interpretation, invented to serve the purposes of a party, as 
Episcopalians have frequently asserted 5 but an interpretation 
more than 1400 years old; and represented as the general sense 
of the apostolic age, by one who had as good an opportunity of 
becoming acquainted with early opinions on this subject as any 
man then living. 

2. That a departure from the primitive 77ioc?e/ of church govern- 
ment had taken place in Jerome's day ; that this departure 
consisted in making a distinction of order between bishops and 
presbyters ; and that this drstinction was neither warranted by 
scripture, nor conformable to the apostolic model ; but owed its 
origin to the decay of religion, and especially to the ambition of 
ministers. It commenced " when every one began to think that 
" those whom he baptized were rather Ms than ChrisVs.^^ 

3. It is expressly asserted by Jerome, that this change in the 
constitution of the Christian ministry came in (paulaiim) by little 
and little. He says, indeed, in one of the passages above quoted, 
that it was agreed " all over the world," as a remedy against schism* 
to choose one of the presbyters, and make him president or 
moderator of the body ; and some commentators on this passage 
have represented it as saying that the change was made all at once. 
Fortunately, however, we have Jerome's express declaration in 
another place, that the practice came in gradually. But whether 
half a century or two centuries elapsed before the " whole world" 
came to an agreement on this subject, he does not say. 

4. Jerome further informs us, that the first pre-eminence of 
bishops was only such as the body of the presbyters were able to 
confer. They were only standing presidents 01 moderators ; and 
all the ordinatiin they received, on being thus chosen, was per- 
formed by the presbyters themselves.* This he tells us was the 

* To this some Episcopal writers reply, that Jtrome does not expressly 
assert that the presbyters ordained the bishop, but only tliat they chose 
him, placed him in a higher seaty and called him bishop. And hence they 
take the liberty of inferring" that the election was by the presbyters, but 
the ordination by other diocesan bishops. To suppose this, is to make 
Jerome reason most inconclusively, and adduce an instance which was 
not only nothing to the purpose, but directly hostile to his whole 
argument. If the presbyters did not do all that was done, the case had 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 123 

only Episcopacy that existed in the church of Alexandria^ one of 
most conspicuous then in the world, until after the middle of the 
third century. 

5. It is finally manifest, from these quotations, that while Jerome 
maintains ihe parity of all ministers of the Gospel in the primitive 
church, he entirely excludes deacons from being an order of clergy 
at all. " Who can endure it, that a minister of tables and of 
" widows should proudly exalt himself above those at whose prayers 
" the body and blood of Christ is made ?" 

Some zealous Episcopal writers have endeavoured to destroy 
the force of these express declarations of Jerome, by quoting other 
passages, in which he speaks of bishops and presbyters in the 
current language of his time. For instance, in one place, speaking 
of that pre-eminence which bishops had then attained, he asks, 
" What can a bishop do that a presbyter may not also do, except- 
" ing ordination ?" But it is evident that Jerome, in this passage, 
refers, not to the primitive right of bishops, but to prerogative 
which they had gradually acquired, and which generally yielded to 
them in his day. His position is, that even then there was no 
right which they arrogated to themselves above presbyters, 
excepting that of ordination. In like manner, in another place, he 
makes a kind of loose comparison between the officers of the 
Christian Church, a?.i the Jewish Priesthood. These passages, 
however, and othes of a similar kind, furnish nothing in support 
of the Episcopal cause.* Jerome, when writing on ordinary 
occasions, spoke of Episcopacy as it then stood. But when he 
undertook explicitly to deliver an opinion respecting primitive 
Episcopacy, he expressed himself in the words we have seen; 



nothing to do with his reasoning". Besides, Eutychius the patriarch of 
Alexandria, in his Origlnes Ecdesias Alexandrinse, published by the 
learned Selden, expressly declares, " that the twelve presbyters consti- 
«* tuted by Mark, upon the vacancy of the see, did choose out of their 
** number one to be head over the rest, and the other eleven did lay their 
" hands upon him, and blessed him, and made him Patriarch.^' 

* Accordingly bishop StiUingfieet declares, " Among all the fifteen 
" testimonies produced by a learned writer out of Jerome, for the supe- 
"riority of bishops above presbyters, I cannot find one that does found 
" it upon divine right ,- but only on the convenience of such an order 
"for the peace and unity of the church." Irenicum. Part IF. chapter 6th. 



124 LETTER V. 

words as absolutely decisive as any friend of Presbyterian parity 
could wish. To attempt to set vague allusions, and phrases of 
dubious import, in opposition to such express and unequivocal 
passages ; passages in which the writer professedly and formally 
lays down a doctrine, reasons at great length in its support, and 
deliberately deduces his conclusion, is as absurd as it is uncandid. 
Jerome, therefore, notwithstanding all the arts which have been 
employed to set aside his testimony, remains a firm and decisive 
witness in support of our principle, that the doctrine of ministerial 
parity was the doctrine of the primitive church. Accordingly 
bishop Jewel, professor Baignolds, bishop Stilling jieet, and other 
learned divines of the church of England, as I shall afterwards show, 
interpret this father, on the subject of Episcopacy, precisely as I 
have done, and consider him as expressly' declaring that bishop and 
presbyter were the same in the apostolic age. 

But what strongly confirms our interpretation of Jerome is, that 
several fathers contemporary, or nearly so, with him, when called 
to speak specifically on the same subject, make, in substance, the 
same statement. In other parts of their writings, they speak, as 
Jerome did, in the current language of their time : But when they 
had occasion to express a precise opinion on the point now under 
consideration, they do it in a way not to be mistaken. Two or 
three examples of this will be sufficient. .^^ 

Augvsline, bishop of Hippo, in writing to Jerome, who was a 
presbyter, expresses himself thus : " I entreat you to correct me 
" faithfully when you see I need it ; for although, according to the 
*^ names of honour icliich the custom of the church has now brought 
" into use, the office of bishop is greater than that of presbyter, 
" nevertheless^ in many respects, Augustine is inferior to Jerome.^* 
Epist. 19. cid hierom. It is worthy of notice that bishop Jewel 
in the " Defence of his Apology for the Church of England,^' pro- 
duces this passage for the express purpose of showing the original 
identity of bishop and presbyter, and translates it thus : " The 
" office of bishop is above the office of priest, not by authority of 
" the scriptures, but after the names of honour which the custom 
" of the church hath now obtained." Defence, 122, 123. 

If there is meaning in words, Augustine represents the superio- 
rity of bishops to presbyters as introduced by the custom of the 
church, rather than divine appointment. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 125 

Hilary f (sometimes called Ambrose) who wrote about the year 
376, in his Commentary on Ephesians iv. 2. has the following 
passage. " After that churches were planted in all places, and 
" officers ordained, matters were settled otherwise than they were 
" in the beginning. And hence it is, that the apostles' writings 
" do not in all things agree to the present constitution of the 
" church : because they were written under the first rise of the 
'• church 5 for he calls Timothy^ who was created ?l presbyter by him, 
" a bishop, fur so at first the presbyters were called ^ among whom 
" this was the course of governing churches, that as one withdrew 
" another took his place ; and in Egypt, even at this day, the 
" presbyters ordain (or consecrate, consignant) in the bishop's 
" absence. But because the following presbyters began to be found 
" unworthy to hold the first place, the method icas changed, the 
" council providing that not order, but merit, should create a 
" bishop." 

In this passage, we have not only an express declaration that 
the Christian church, in the days oi Hilary, had deviated from its 
primitive pattern ; but also that this deviation had a particular 
respect to the name and office of bishop, which, in the beginning, 
was the same with presbyter. He also declares, that, notwith- 
standing this change, p?'es6^3/ers, even then, sometimes ordained; 
and that the reason of their not continuing to exercise this power 
was, that an ecclesiastical arrangement, subsequent to the 
apostolical age, alone prevented it. 

The testimony of Chrysostom, who wrote about the year 398, 
is also in our favour. " The apostles," says he, " having dis- 
" coursed concerning the bishops, and described them, declaring 
" what they ought to be, and from what they ought to abstain, 
" omitting the order oi presbyters, descends to the deacons ; and 
" why so, but because between bishop and presbyter there is 
" scarcely any difference ; and to them is committed both the 
" instructions and \\iq. presidency of the church ; and whatever he 
" said of 6is/toj:;s agrees also Xo presbyters. In ordination alone 
" they have gone beyond the presbyters, and of this they seem to 
" have defrauded xhtm.'^^^ 1 Epist. ad Tim. Horn. 11. 

• This perfectly agrees with the representation of /erome, (with whom 
Chrysostom was nearly contemporary) who says that the only right which 
bishops had gained over presbyters, in his dayy was that of ordination. 



126 LETTER V. 

Theodoret, who flourished about the year 430, in his commen- 
- tary on 1 Tim. iii. makes the following declaration : " The apostles 
"call a preshytei' a bishop^ as we showed when we expounded the 
epistle to the Philippians, and which may be also learned from 
" this place, for after the precepts proper to bishops, he describes 
" the things which belong to deacons. But, as I said, of old they 
" called the same men both bishops, and presbyters.'* 

Primasius, who was contemporary with Theodoret, and is said 
to have been Augustine's disciple, in explaining 1 Tim. iii. asks, 
" Why the apostle leaps from the duties o( bishops to the duties of 
" deacons, without any mention of presbyters V and answers, 
" because bishops and presbyters are the same degree.'' 

Sedulius also, who wrote about the year 470, in his commen- 
tary on Titus i. expressly asserts the identity of bishop and 
presbyter. He declares, not only that the titles are interchangeably 
applied to the same men, but also that the ojficeisthe same ^ many 
of them being found in the primitive church, in one city, which 
could not be true of diocesan bishops. In proof of this, he adduces 
the case of the elders of Ephesus, Acts xx. who all dwelt in one 
city, and who, though called elders or presbyters in the I7th verse 
of that chapter, are yet, in the 28th verse, called bishops. 

And, finally, Aerius, a presbyter of Sebastia, and contemporary 
with Jerome, maintained the same doctrine with that father, on the 
subject before us. He not only opposed prayers for the dead, the 
superstitious observance of fasts and festivals, and other uncom- 
manded rites; but he insisted, with zeal, that bishop and presbyter 
were the same in the apostolic church, and that there ought to be 
no distinction of orders in the holy ministry. 

We are told indeed by the friends of prelacy, that Aerius, was 
reputed an heretic for holding that there was no difference between 
bishops and presbyters. And as an authority on this subject, they 
refer us to Epiphanius, who, towards the close of the fourth centu- 
ry, undertook to give a list of heresies, and included Aerius in the 
number. But when this alleged fact is impartially examined, it 
will be found to weigh nothing in this controversy. For, in the 
Jirst place, Epiphanius is a writer of no credit. The learned 
Mosheim speaks of him in the following terms. " His book against 
" all the heresies which had sprung up in the church until his time, 
•' has little or no reputation ; as it is full of inaccuracies and errors, 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 127 

" and discovers almost in every page the levity and ignorance of 
" its author." But, secondly^ by comparing the whole testimony 
of antiquity on this subject, it appears that Aerius was condemned 
not so much for maintaining that bishop ^xiA presbyter were the 
same by the icord of God, as for insisting that there ought not to be 
any difference made between them; in asserting which, he opposed 
that pre-eminence which the bishops had gradually gained, and 
set himself against the actual constitution of most of the churches 
in his day. For this he was hated and reviled by the friends of 
high-church doctrines, and stigmatized as a heretic and schismatic* 
This appears to have been the true reason why Aerius rendered 
himself so obnoxious,and was condemned by so many ; while Jerome 
and Augusiin, unquestionably the most learned divines of the age, 
though they held and avowed substantially the same doctrine, yet 
escaped similar treatment, by tolerating, and even approving the 
moderate prelacy which was established in their lime, not as a 
divine appointment, but as a system founded on human prudence. 
Accordingly Bishop Stillingjleet observes, " I believe, upon the 
" strictest inquiry, ilfe^m«'s judgment will prove true, that Jerome, 
" Augustin, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact 
" were all of Aerius his judgment, as to the identity of both the 
"name and the order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive 
" church. But here lay the difference : Aerius proceeded from 
" hence to separate from bishops and their churches, because they 
" were bishops. Whereas Jerome, while he held the same doctrine 
" did not think it necessary to cause a schism in the church by 
*' separating from the bishops, for his opinion is clear, that the 
" first institution of them was for preventing schism, and therefore 
" for peace and unity he thought their institution very useful in the 

* The following- passag-e from Dr. Haivies's (an Episcopal clerg-yman) 
Ecclesiastical History,!, p. 340, is worthy of notice. " .^erms made a 
*' fiercer resistance, and maintained more offensive doctrines ; that bishops 
*' s.nd presbyters in the Scripture are the same persons, and only different 
" descriptions of age and office ; that prayers for the dead were futile, 
*' and hopes from their intercession vain ; that stated fasts and festivals 
" had no prescription in the New Testament. These, with similar asser- 
" tions, roused a host of enemies, and he was quickly silenced. So super- 
" stition stalked triumphant, and no man dared open his mouth against 
" any abuses." 



128 LETTER V. 

" church of God." Irenicum. To the judgment of Stilling fleet 
may be added that of Professor Raignolds, Bishop Morton, and 
and other eminent Episcopal writers, who frankly acknowledge 
that Aerius coincided in opinion on this subject with Jerome, and 
other distinguished fathers, who undeniably taught the same doc- 
trine, without being stigmatized as heretics. 

Another witness on whose testimony much stress is laid by 
Episcopalians, is Eusebius. They tell us that this historian, who 
lived early in the fourth century, frequently speaks o( bishops as 
superior to common presbyters ; that he gives catalogues of the 
bishops who presided over several of the most eminent churches ; 
that he mentions their names in the order of succession, from the 
apostolic age down to his own lime ; and that all succeeding eccle- 
siastical writers speak the same language. But what does all this 
prove? Nothing more than we have before granted. No one dis- 
putes that before the time of Constantine, in whose reign Eusebius 
lived, a kind of prelacy prevailed, which was more fully organized 
and established by that emperor. But does Eusebius inform us 
what kind of difference there was between the bishops and pres- 
byters of his day ? Does he say that the former were a different 
order from the latter ? Does he declare that there was a superior- 
ity of order vested in bishops by divine appointment ? Does he 
assert that bishops in the days of the Apostles, and for a century 
afterwards, were the same kind of officers with those who were 
called by the same title in the fourth century ? Does he tell us that 
this superior order of clergy were the only ecclesiasticsl officers 
who were allowed, in his day, to ordain and confirm ? I have 
never met with a syllable of all, this in Eusebius. All that can be 
gathered from him is, that there were persons called bishops in the 
days of the apostles ; that there had been a succession of bishops 
in the church from the apostles to the fourth century, when he 
lived ; and that in his day, there was a distinction between bishops 
and other presbyters. But does any one deny this ? To assert 
that, because Eusebius speaks of particular persons in the first and 
second centuries as 6/s/io/?s of particular churches; therefore they 
were so in the prelalical sense of the word, is really playing on the 
credulity of unwary readers ; since Episcopalians themselves grant 
that the term bishop was applied, in the apostolic age, and for some 
time afterwards, differently from what it was in the age of Eusebius. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 129 

We agree that there were bishops in the first century, and have prov- 
ed from Scripture and the early fathers, that this title was then ap- 
plied to the ordinary pastors of single congregations. We agree, also, 
that there was a succession o(bishoj)s in the second and third centu- 
ries. And finally, we agree that in the time of Constanline, prelacy 
was established in the church. All this is perfectly consistent with 
our doctrine, viz. that diocesan episcopacy, or bishops, as an order 
superior lo presbyters, were unknown in the primitive church. I 
have never heard of a sentence in Eusebius that touches this point . 
and I need not repeat that it is the grand point in dispute. On the 
other hand, we have seen that Jerome, who lived and wrote a little 
after Eusebius, not only touches this point, but formally discusses 
it, and unequivocally decides, that the bishops oiEjphesus, Philippi, 
and Crete, in the days o(Paul, were a very different kind of church 
officers from those bishops who lived in the fourth century. 

But this is not all. When Eusebius gives us formal catalogues 
of bishops in succession, from the apostles' time until his own, he 
himself warns us against laying too much stress on his informa- 
tion ; frankly confessing, " that he was obliged to rely much on 
" tradition, and that he could trace no footsteps of other historians 
" going before him only in a few narratives." This confession 
of Eusebius, I shall present in the words of the great Milton. 
^'Eusebius, theancientest writer of church history extant, confesses 
" in the 4th chapter of his 3d book, that it was no easy matter 
"to tell who were those that were left bishops of the churches by 
"the apostles, more than what a man might gather from the Acts 
" of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul, in which number he 
" reckons Timothy for bishop of Ephesus. So as may plainly 
" appear, that this tradition of bishopping Timothy over Ephesus, 
" was but taken for granted out of that place in St. Paid, which 
" was only an entreating him to tarry at Ephesus, to do something 
" left him in charge. Now if Eusebius, a famous writer, thought 
" it so difficult to tell who were appointed bishops -by the apostles, 
" much more may we think it difficult to Leoniius, an obscure 
" bishop, speaking beyond his own diocese ; and certainly much 
" more hard was it for either of them to determine what kind of 
" bishops these were, if they had so little means to know who they 
" were ; and much less reason have we to stand to their definitive 
" sentence, seeing they have been so rash as to raise up such loffy 
R 



130 LETTER V. 

" bishops and bishopricks, out of places of scripture merely 
" misunderstood. Thus while we leave the Bible to gad after these 
"traditons of the ancients, we hear the ancients themselves 
'* confessing, that what knowledge they had in this point was such 
" as they had gathered from the Bible." Milton against Prtlatical 
^^ Episcopacy J p. 3. 

Besides the quotations above presented, which abundantly prove 
that the primitive bishop was the pastor of a single congregation, 
there are some facts, incidentally staled, by early writers, which 
serve remarkably to confirm the same truth. 

The^rst fiict is, the great number of bishops which ecclesiastical 
historians inform us, were found in early periods of the church, 
within small districts of country. Eusebius tells us, that about the 
year 260, when Gallienus was emperor, Paul, bishop of Ahtioch^ 
began to oppose the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. A council 
was immediately called at Antioch, to consider and judge of PauVs 
heresy. Diojiysius, bishop of the church of Alexandria, was 
invited, but did not attend ; and the historian, after mentioning six 
conspicuous names, adds, '' It would be nowise difficult to enume- 
*^ rate sfo; /iW7J£/recZ other bishops, who all flowed together to that 
" place." At a conference which Augustin, and the bishops of 
his province, in Africa, had with the Donatists, about the year 
410, there were present belween Jive and six hundred bishops. 
Victor Uticensis in his work De Persecuiione Vandalica, informs 
us, that from the part of Africa in which this persecution took 
place, six hundred and sixty bishops fled, besides the great number 
that were murdered and imprisoned, and many more who were 
tolerated. Here, then, we find five or six hundred bishops 
residing in districts of country not more extensive than some of our 
larger states. Can any reasonable man imagine, for a moment, 
that these were diocesans, each having many churches, with their 
pastors, under. his care? It is impossible. No one who is 
acquainted with the state of the church in those early times, and 
especially with the difficulty and infrequency of long journeys, at 
that period, will believe that these bishojjs were any. other than 
the pastors o( single congregations. To suppose that they were 
diocesans, in the modern sense of the word, would be an absurdity. 
In the state of Neio York there is but one Episcopal bishop ; and 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 131 

over all the ten thousand parish churches in England, there are 
only twenty-seven of this order. In proportion as the church, 
among other corruptions, receded from the scriptural doctrine of 
ministerial parity, in the same proportion those who were called 
bishops became less and less numerous ; insomuch, that at the 
great council of Trent there were only about forty bishops 
convened. 

A second fact, the counterpart of the preceding, is equally 
decisive. It is the small number of souls committed to the care of 
some of the early bishops. We are informed that Gregory 
ThaumaturguSj when he was made bishop of Neo-ccBsareay in 
Pontus, about A. D. 250, had but seventeen professing christians 
in his parish.* And in many of the early writers we read of 
bishops being located in small obscure villages, within three or 
four miles of each other. This is surely descriptive of parochial^ 
and not of diocesan Episcopacy. It would, manifestly, be the 
height of absurdity to suppose that pastors who could not possibly 
have more than a few hundred souls under their care, were any 
other than overseers of single congregations. 

A third fact, which goes far towards proving that hisJiops, in 
early times, were the ordinary pastors of single congregations, is 
that it was then customary for the ^ocA: of which the bishop was 
to have the charge, to meet together for the purpose of electing 
him 5 and he was always ordained in their presence. Cyprian, 
in a passage quoted in a preceding page, expressly tells us, that 
these were standing rules in choosing and ordaining bishops ; 
and Eusebius, (lib. 6. cap. 28, p. 229.) in giving an account of 
the election o( Fabianus to the office of bishop, in Rome, confirms 
the statement of Cyprian. He tells us, that upon the death of Bishop 
Anterus, " All the people met together in the church to choose a 
" successor, proposing several illustrious and eminent personages 
" as fit for that office, whilst no one so much as thought upon 
" Fabianus, then present, till a dove miraculously came and sat 
" upon his head, in the same manner as the Holy Ghost formerly 
"descended on our Saviour ; and then all the people, guided as it 
" were with one divine spirit, cried out with one mind and soul, 
" that Fabianus was worthy of the bishoprick : and so straightway 

* Gregor. Nyss. Opei-.Vol. 11. p. 979. 



132 LETTER V. 

" taking him, they placed him on the Episcopal throne." The 
very existence of these rules in early times shows that bishops 
were then nothing more than the pastors of single churches ; for in 
no other case is the application of such rules possible. And 
accordingly afterwards, when diocesan Episcopacy crept into the 
church, this mode of choosing and ordaining bishops became 
impracticable, and was gradually laid aside. 

A fourth fact, which shows that the primitive bishop was the 
pastor of a single church or congregation, is that in the first three 
centuries, the bishop's charge was commonly called ifa^oma, a 
parishy signifying those who resided in the immediate vicinity of 
each other. But, in process of time, when the bishop's power 
was enlarged, and his territorial limits extended, his charge began 
to be called ^jojxtjCj^, a diocese, a word notoriously taken from 
the secular language of the Roman empire, and expressive of a 
larger jurisdiction. This change of diction, evidently contempo- 
rary with the change of fact, is too significant to be overlooked. 

A ffth fact, which shows that primitive Episcopacy was 
parochial and not diocesan, is, that for a considerable time after 
the days of the apostles, all the elders who were connected with a 
bishop, are represented as belonging to the same congregation 
with him, and sitting with him when the congregation was con- 
vened for public worship. Indeed, some of the early v/riters go so 
far as to inform us in what manner they were seated, viz. that the 
bishop sat in the middle of a semi-circular bench ; that the elders 
took their places on the same bench, on each side of their president 
or moderator 5 and that the deacons remained in a standing 
posture in the front of this seat, and in a lower place, ready to 
perform the services required of them. This representation per- 
fectly accords with our doctrine of primitive episcopacy, in which 
every congregation was furnished with a bishop, elders, and dea- 
cons ; but cannot possibly be reconciled with the diocesan form. 

A sixth fact, which shows that the primitive bishop was only 
the pastor of a single congregation, is, that the early writers 
represent the bishop as living in the same house with his presby- 
ters or elders; a house near the place of worship to which they 
resorted, and capable of accommodating them all. They tell us, 
also, that the bishop, together with his elders, were supported by 
the same oblations ; that these oblations were offered on one altar, 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 153 

or communion table; and that they were constantly divided, 
agreeably to certain established rules between the bishop and 
elders. It 'must be obvious to every impartial reader, that this 
account agrees only with the system of parochial episcopacy, and 
that on any other principle such a plan of procedure would be at 
once impracticable and absurd. 

The last circumstance relating to the primitive bishop which 
serves to fix his character, as the pastor of a single congregation, is 
the nature of that service which he loas accustomed to •perform. 
We have seen something of this in the foregoing quotations ; but 
it will be proper to bring together into one view the duties incum- 
bent on the bishop, in the apostolic and immediately succeeding 
ages. The early writers, then, speak of the primitive bishop as 
performing, in general, all the baptisms in his flock ; as the only 
person who, ino rdinary cases, administered the Lord's Supper ; as 
constantly present with his people when convened ; as the leader 
of their worship ; as their stated public instructor ; as visiting all 
the sick under his care 5 as catechising the young people several 
times in each week 5 as having the superintendency of the poor, 
none of whom were to be relieved by the deacons without, in each 
particular case, consulting the bishop ; as celebrating all marriages; 
as attending all funerals ; as under obligations to be personally 
acquainted whh every individual of his flock, not overlooking even 
the servant-men and maids ; as employed in heahng diff'erences 
among neighbours; and besides all these, attending to the discipline 
of his society, receiving and excluding members, &c. &c. Now is 
it not evident that no man could perform these duties for more than 
a single congregation ? Can any impartial reader believe that the 
officers to whom all these details of parochial labours were allotted, 
were any other than the pastors of particular churches ? To suppose 
that they were diocesan bishops, having a number of congregations, 
with subordinate pastors, under their control, is a supposition too 
absurd to be for a moment admitted. 

Such is the testimony of the later fathers on the subject before 
us. We can find much evidence that, after the close of the third 
century^ a difference of rank between bishops and ordinary 
presbyters began to be generally acknowledged ; but we can find 
no evidence whatever^ within the first four centuries, that the 
Christian church considered diocesan Episcopacy as the apostblic 



134 LETTER V. 

and primitive form. On the contrary, we have found several 
fathers of high reputation expressly declaring, that in the primitive 
church bishop and presbyter were the same ; and that prelacy, as 
it existed in the fourth and following centuries, was a human 
invention, and gradually adopted in the church, as a measure of 
prudence. We have found, in particular, one father, who stands 
at the pinnacle of honour, for learning as well as piety, maintain- 
ing both these positions with a clearness, a force of argument, and 
a detail of illustration, which one would imagine might satisfy 
incredulity itself. And we have seen in these early writers, a 
variety of facts incidentally stated ; facts which, taken alone, 
would be considered by any court on earth as affording conclusive 
proof, that even after a moderate kind of prelacy arose, the bishops 
were still the pastors of single congregations. 

I will not exhaust your patience, my brethren, by pursuing 
further a chain of testimony so clear and indisputable. I have 
intentionally disguised nothing that seemed to favour the Episcopal 
cause ; and, indeed, amidst such poverty of even plausible evidence 
in their behalf, there is little temptation to disguise any thing. It 
has truly filled me with surprise at every step of my progress, to 
observe, that, with all the confidence of assertion, and all the 
parade of testimony, exhibited by the friends of prelacy, they should 
be able to produce so little from the fathers, their strong hold, 
which can yield them even the semblance of support. I cannot, 
therefore, conclude this letter in words more expressive of my fixed 
opinion, than thosCjOf a distinguished bishop of the Church o^ Eng- 
land, who, though he regarded prelacy as a wise human institution, 
steadfastly resisted the claim of divine right, which some high 
churchmen in his day were disposed to urge. After having stated 
some of their most plausible arguments, he declares, " I hope my 
" reader will now see what weak proofs are brought for this 
" distinction and superiority of order. No scripture; no primitive 
" general council ; no general consent of primitive doctors and 
" fathers ', no, not one primitive father of note, speaking particularly 
" and home to their purpose.'^* 

* Bishop Croft's Naked Truths p. 47. 



( 135 ) 



LETTER VI. 

TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS, AND OTHER WITNESSES FOR THE 
TRUTH, IN DIFFERENT AGES AND NATIONS. 

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

You have been already reminded, that neither the question be- 
fore us, nor any other which relates to the faith or the order of the 
church, is to be decided by human authority. We have a higher 
and more unerring standard. But still, when there is a remarkable 
concurrence of opinion among learned and holy men, in favour of 
any doctrine or practice, it affords a strong presumptive argument 
that such doctrine or practice is conformable to Scripture. Thus 
the fact, that the great body of the reformers concurred in embrace- 
ing and supporting that system of evangelical truth, which has been 
since very improperly styled Ca/tmzsm*, is justly viewed by the 
friends of that system as a powerful argument in its favour. Let us 
apply this principle to the case under consideration. 

It has been common for the zealous friends of prelacy to insin- 
uate, that the Presbyterian doctrine of parity was unknown till the 
time of Calvin; that he was the first distinguished and successful 
advocate for this doctrine; and that the great body of the re- 
formers totally differed from him on this subject, and embraced 
Episcopacy. How persons even tolerably versed in the history of 
the reformed churches, could ever allow themselves to make such 
a representation, 1 am altogether at a loss to conceive. Nothing 
certainly can be more remote from fact. The smallest attention to 
the subject will convince every impartial inquirer, that the most 
distinguished witnesses for evangelical truth, through the dark 
ages, long before Calvin lived, maintained the doctrine of minis- 
terial parity ; that the earliest reformers, both in Great Britain and 

*I s&y improperly styled Calvinism^ because, to say nothing" of its much 
greater antiquity, the same system had been distinctly taught by several 
eminent reformers, and among others, by Luther himself, before Calvin 
appeared. 



136 LETTER VI. 

on the continent of Europe, admitted the same principle ; that all 
the reformed churches, excepting that of England^ were organized 
on this principle; that the church of England stands alone in the 
whole Protestant world, in making diocesan Bishops an order of 
clergy, superior to presbyters; and that even those venerable men 
who finally settled her government and worship, did not consider 
this superiority as resting on the ground of Divine appointment, 
but o( ecclesiastical usage and human expediency. 

If I mistake not, it will be easy to satisfy you, by a very brief 
induction of facts, that these assertions are not lightly made. 

In the honourable catalogue of witnesses for the truth, amidst the 
corruption and darkness of papal error, the Waldenses hold the 
first place. They began to appear about the close of the seventh 
century, when they resided chiefly in the \d\\tysoi Piedmont. But 
they afterwards greatly multiplied, spread themselves extensively 
in France, Switzerland, and Italy, and, under different names in 
different districts, continued their testimony in favour of evangeli- 
cal truth, for a number of centuries. All Protestant historians con- 
cur in representing them as constituting the purest part of the 
Christian church for several ages : and Reinerius, who had once 
lived among them, and who was their bitter persecutor, says, 
" They are more pernicious to the church oi Rome than any other 
" sect of heretics, for three reasons : 1. Because they are older than 
" any other sect ; for some say that they have been ever since the 
" time of Sylvester ; and others say, from the time of the apostles. 
»* 2. Because they are more extensively spreacf than any other sect ; 
" there being scarcely a country into which they have not crept. 
" 3. Because other sects are abominable to God for their blasphe- 
" raies ; but the Waldenses are morepious than any odier heretics; 
" they believe truly of God, live justly before men, and receive all 
" the articles of the creed ; only they hate the church of Rome?' 

Among the numerous points in which these witnesses for the 
truth rejected the errors of the Romish church, and contended for 
the doctrine of Scripture, and the apostolic age, one was that there 
ought to be no diversity of rank among ministers of the Gospel ; 
that bishops and presbyters, according to the word of God, and 
primitive practice, were the same order. Nor did they merely em- 
brace this doctrine in theory. Their ecclesiastical organization was 
Presbyterian in its form. I know that this fact concerning the 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 137 

Waldenses has been denied ; but it is established beyond all reason- 
able question by authentic historians. Ferrhiy Mneas Stjlvius,* 

Thuanus, WalsingJiam, and others, who considered the tenet as a 
most offensive one, expressly assert that they held It. And 
although at some periods of their history they had persons among 
them whom the}' denominated bishops ; yet it is well known that 
they were mere presbi/ters, who received no new consecration as 
bishops; and that they laid claim to no superiority of order or 
power. 

The noble stand in defence of evangelical truth, made by the 
celebrated Dr. John Wickliffe,f is well known. This illustrious 
English divine was professor of divinity in the university of Oxford, 
and has been frequently called " the morning star of the reforma- 
" tion." He protested with great boldness and zeal against the super- 
stitions of the church of Borne ^ and taught a system, both of doctrine 
and order, remarkably similar to that which Luther^ Calvin, and the 
great body of the reformers, two hundred years afterwards, united in 
recommending to the Christian world.| " He was for rejecting all 
" mere human rites, and new shadows or traditions in religion ; 
" and with regard to tlie identity of the order of bishops and 
" priests in the apostolic age, he is very positive : C/wwm audacfer 
" assero,^^ &c. " One thing I boldly assert, that in the primitive 
" church, or in the time of the Apostle Paul, two orders of clergy 
" were thought sufficient, viz. Priest and Deacon ; and I do also 
" say, that in the time of Paul,fmt idem presbyter atque episco- 

* Mneas Sylvius declares, " They deny the hierarchy ; maintaining- 
** that there is no diiference among the priests by reason of dig-nity of 
*' office." Quotations equally decisive might be produced from other 
authentic writers. 

f *' TVickliffe," says Bishop JVewcome, " was not only a good divine, 
" and scripturist, but well skilled in the civil, canon, and English law. 
'* To great learning and abilities, he added the ornament of a grave, un- 
" blemished, and pious conduct." 

^ He renounced the supremacy of the pope; rejected the heresy of 
transubstantiation; and taught, that the Bible is a perfect rule of life and 
manners, and ought to be read by the people; that human traditions are 
superfluous and sinful ; that we must practise and teach only the laws of 
Christ ; that mystical and significant ceremonies in religious worship are 
unlawful ; and that to restrain men to ^ prescribed form ofprayer^ is con- 
trary to the liberty granted Ihem by God. 

s 



138 LETTER VJ. 

" pus, i. e. a priest and a bishop were one and the same ; for in 
" those times the distinct orders ofpope, cardinals, patriarchs, arch- 
*' bishops, bishops, arch-deacons, officials, and deans, were not 
" invented."* The followers of WickUffe imbibed this as well as 
the other opinions of their master ; and, accordingly, it is well 
known that they held and practised ordination by presbyters, not 
for want of diocesan bishops, but on the avowed principle, that they 
considered all ministers who " laboured in the word and doctrine," 
and administered sacraments, as having equal pow^er.t 

The renowned martyrs, John Huss and Jerome, of Prague,^ 
who laid down their lives for the truth, a little after the time of 
WickUffe, embraced the greater part, if not all the opinions of the 
English reformer, and especially his doctrine concerning the parity 
of Christian ministers. Their disciples acted in conformity with 
this doctrine, ^neas Sylvius, (afterwards Fivs IT.) speaking of 
of the Hussites, says, " One of the dogmas of this pestiferous 
" sect, is, that there is no difference of order among those who bear 
" the priestly office." This account is confirmed by the historian 
Thuanus, who expressly speaks of their opinions as resembling 
those of the English dissenters. 

The churches which ecclesiastical historians have generally 
distinguished by the title of the Bohemian brethren, and which 
flourished before the time oi Luther, are considered as the descend- 
ants of the Hussites, and as having inherited their opinions as well 
as their evangelical spirit. These churches distinctly held and 
taught, as their book of discipline proves, that there is but one 
order of ministers of divine right, and, of course, that all difference 
of grades in the ministry, is a matter of human prudence. They 
had, indeed, among them persons who were styled bishops ; but 
they expressly disavowed the divine institution of this order ; and 
what is more, they derived their ministerial succession from the 

* See Lewis's Life of WickUffe, 8vo. 1720. 

-j- See Walsingham's Hist. Brevis A. D. 1389, 339—340. 

\ Huss and Jerome were celebrated for their learning as well as piety, 
and were both disting-uished members of the University of Prague. The 
former was more particularly eminent on account of his erudition and 
eloquence, and performed at the same time the functions of professor of 
divinity m the University, and pastor of the church in that city. 
Mosheim. 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 139 

Waldenses, who had no other, strictly speaking, than Presbyterian 
bishops. Even Comenius, their celebrated historian, who says 
most about their bishops, distinctly acknowledges that bishop and 
presbyter are the same by divine right. It is also an undoubted 
and remarkable fact, that the Bohemian 6reM/-ew retained the office 
of ruling elder m their churches; an office which, toward the latter 
part of the fourth century, had been, in the greater part of the 
Christian world, discontinued. The following representation by 
the learned Bucer, will be deemed, by those who are acquainted^ 
with his character, conclusive as to this fact. " The Bohemian 
" brethren, who almost alone preserved in the world the purity of 
*^ the doctrine, and the vigor of the discipline of Christ, observed 
" an excellent rule, for which we are compelled to give them credit, 
"and especially to praise that God who thus wrought by them; 
" notwithstanding those brethren are preposterously despised by 
" some learned men. The rule which they observed was this : 
" Besides ministers of the word and sacraments, they had, in each 
" church, a bench or college of men excelling in gravity and pru- 
" dence, who performed the duties of admonishing and correcting 
" offenders, composing differences, and judicially deciding in cases 
" of dispute. Of this kind of elders, Hilary wrote, when he said, 
" Unde et SynagogaJ'^ &c. Script. Advers. Latom. p. 77- 

The celebrated Mr. Tindal, a canon of Oxford, who gave the 
first translation of the Bible into English, and who suffered martyr- 
dom in the reign of Henry VIII. for his zeal and his distinguished 
labours in the cause of truth, has the following explicit declaration, 
in his Practice of Popish Prelates. " The apostles following and 
" obeying the rule, doctrine, and commandment of our Saviour, 
" ordained in his kingdom and congregation, two officers, one 
" called after the Greek word, bishop, m English, an Overseer; 
'• which same was called Priest, after the Greek. Another officer 
" they chose, and called him deacon, after the Greek ; a minister, 
" in English, to minister alms to the poor. All that were called 
" elders (or priests, if they so will) were called bishops also, though 
" they have now divided the names." 

The famous John Lambert, another mai tyr in the same reign, 
who is represented even by Episcopal historians, as a man of great 
learning, as well as meekness and piety, expressed himself on the 
subject under consideration in the following manner : " As touch- 
•' ing priesthood in the primitive church, when virtue bare the most 



140 LETTER VI. 

" room, there were no more officers in the church than bishops and 
i^ deacons, as witnesseth, besides scripture, full apertly Jerome, in 
" his commentary upon St. PauPs epistles, where he saith, that 
" those we call priests, were all one, and no other but bishops, 
^^ and the bishops none but priests.^' 

The fathers of the reformation in England were Presbyterians 
in principle ; that is, a majority of the most pious and learned 
among them considered bishop and presbyter as the same, by divine 
right. But as the influence of the crown was exerted in favour of 
prelacy ; as many of the bishops were opposed to the reformation 
altogether ; and as the right of the civil magistrate to direct the 
outward organization of the church at pleasure, was acknowledged 
by all the reformers, they yielded to the establishment of diocesan 
episcopacy, as the most suitable form of government in the cir- 
cumstances then existing. But it does not appear that any one of 
them thought of placing episcopacy on the footing of divine right, 
and far less of representing it as of such indispensable and unalter- 
able necessity, as many of their less learned sons have thought 
proper to maintain since that time. I know that this fact, concerning 
those venerable reformers, has been denied. But I know, at the 
same time, that it rests on proof the most complete and satisfactory, 
and which will ever resist all the ingenious arts which have been 
used to set it aside. 

In the year 1537, in the reign of Henri/ VIII. there was a book 
published for the purpose of promoting the reformation, entitled, 
J he Institution of a Christian Man. It was called the Bishops^ 
Book, because it was composed by Archbishop Cranmer, and 
several other prelates. It was recommended and subscribed by the 
two archbishops, by nineteen bishops, and by the lower house of 
convocation; published under the authority of the king, and its 
contents ordered to be preached to the whole kingdom. In this 
book it is expressly said, that, "although the fathers of the suc- 
" ceeding church, afier the apostles instituted certain inferior degrees 
" of ministry; yet the truth is, that in the New Testament there is 
" no mention made of any other degree or distinction in orders, but 
" only o( Deacons or Ministers, and o( Presbyters or Bishops.'^* 

*•' In Novo Testamento, nulla mentio facta est aliorum Graduum, aut 
•• distinctionum in Ordinibus, sed Diaconorum (vcl ministrorum) et 
♦' Prcsbylerorum (vcl Episcoporum.") 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 141 

About six years after the publication of (his book, another ap- 
peared, which was designed to pronaote the same laudable purpose. 
This was entitled, " The Necessary Erudition of a Christian 
Man^ It was drawn up by a committee of bishops and other 
divines, was afterwards read and approved by the lords spiritual and 
temporal, and the lower house of parliament ; was prefaced by the 
king and published by his command. This book certainly proves 
that those who drew it up, had obtained much more just and clear 
views of several important doctrines, than they possessed at the date 
of the former publication. But with regard to ministerial parity, 
their sentiments remained unchanged. They still asserted the 
same doctrine. They say, "St. Paul consecrated and ordained 
" bishops by the imposition of hands ; but that there is no certain 
" rule prescribed in Scripture for the nomination, election, or 
" presentation of thenj ; that this is left to the positive laws of 
" every community. The office of the said ministers is, to preach 
'* the word, to minister the sacraments, to bind and loose, to excom- 
<^ municate those that will not be reformed, and to pray for the 
** universal church." Having afterwards mentioned the order of 
deacons, they go on to say, " Of these two orders only, that is to 
" say, priests and deacons, Scripture raaketh express mention ; and 
f' how they were conferred of the Apostles by prayer and imposi- 
*^ tion of hands." 

About five years after the last named publication, viz. about the 
year 1548, Edward VI. called a " select assembly of divines, for 
the resolution of several questions relative to the settlement of 
religion." Of this assembly Archbishop Cranmer was a leading 
member ; and to the tenth question, which respected the office of 
bishops and presbyters, that venerable prelate replied, " bishops 
" and priests were at one time, and were not two things, but one 
" office, in the beginning of Christ's religion." " Thus we see,'* 
says Dr. Stillingjleet^^ by testimony of him who was chieflv instru- 
" mental in our reformation, that he owned not episcopacy as a 
" distinct order from presbytery by divine right, but only as a 
" prudent constitution of the civil magistrate for the better govern- 
" ing of the church." Irenicum. part I. chapter VIII. Two other 
bishops, together with Dr Redmayn and Dr. Cox delivered a simi- 
lar opinion, in still stronger terms ; and several of them adduced 
Jerome as a decided authority in support of their opinion. An 



142 LETTER VI. 

attempt has been made to place this transaction a number of years 
further back than it really stood, in order to show that it was at a 
period when the views of the reformers, with respect to the order 
of the church, were crude and immature. But if Bishop Slilling- 
jleet and Bishop Burnet are to be believed, such were the language 
and the views of Cranmer and other prelates, in the reign of Ed- 
ward VI. and a very short time before the forms of ordination and 
other public service in the church of England were published ; in 
compiling which, it is acknowledged, on all hands, that the arch- 
bishop had a principal share ; and which were given to the public 
in the third year of the reign of that prince. 

Another circumstance, which serves to show that Archbishop 
Cranmer considered the episcopal system in which he shared, as 
founded rather in human prudence and the will of the magistrates 
than the word of God, is, that he viewed the exercise of all episco- 
pal jurisdiction as depending on the pleasure of the king ; and that 
as he gave it, so he might take it away at pleasure. Agreeably to 
this, when Henry VIII. died, the worthy primate regarded his own 
episcopal power as expiring with him ; and therefore would not 
act as archbishop till he had received a new commission from king 
Edward. 

Accordingly, when these great reformers went further than to 
compile temporary and fugitive manuals ; when they undertook to 
frame the fundamental and permanent articles of their church, we 
find them carefully guarding against any exclusive claim in behalf 
of diocesan episcopacy. If they had deemed an order of bishops 
superior to presbyters, indispensably necessary to the regular or- 
ganization of the church, and the validity of Christian ordinances, 
can we suppose that men who showed themselves so faithful and 
zealous in the cause of Christ, would have been wholly silent on 
the subject ? And, above all, if they entertained such an opinion, 
would they have forborne to express it in that article in which they 
undertook formally to state the doctrine of their church with respect 
to the Christian ministry ? That article (the 23d) is couched in the 
following terms. " It is not lawful for any man to take upon him 
*' the office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in 
" the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute 
" the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, 
" which be chosen and called to this work by men, who have pub- 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 143 

" lie authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and 
" send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." Here is not a syllable 
said of diocesan bishops, or of the necessity of episcopal ordination; 
on the contrary, there is most evidently displayed a studious care 
to employ such language as would embrace the other reformed 
churches, and recognize as valid their ministry and ordinances. 

And that such was really the design of those who drew up the 
articles of the church of England, is expressly asserted by Bishop 
Burnet, who will be pronounced by all a competent judge, both of 
the import and history of these articles. This article, he observes, 
" is put in very general words, far from that magisterial stiffness 
" in which some have taken upon them to dictate in this matter. 
" They who drew it up, had the state of the several churches before 
" their eyes, that had been differently reformed ; and although 
" their own had been less forced to go out of the beaten path than 
" any other, yet they knew that all things among themselves had 
" not gone according to those rules, that ought to be sacred in regu- 
" lar times." And, in a subsequent passage, he explicitly declares, 
that neither the reformers of the Church of England, nor their suc- 
cessors, for nearly eighty years after the articles were published, 
did ever call in question the validity of the ordination practised in 
the foreign reformed churches, by presbyters alone. And again, 
he declares — ^' Whatever some Jiotter spirits have thought of this, 
" since that time, yet we are very sure, that not only those who 
" penned the articles, but the body of this church, for above half 
" an age after, did, notwithstanding these irregularities, acknow- 
" ledge the foreign churches, so constituted, to be true churches, as 
" to all the essentials of a church." 

Those who wish to persuade us, that the venerable reformers of 
the church oi England, held the divine right of diocesan episcopacy 
refer us to the ordination service drawn up by them, the language 
of which, it is contended, cannot be interpreted, and far less justi- 
fied, on any other principle. But those who insist on this argument 
forget that the ordination service, as it now stands, differs consider- 
bly from that which was drawn up by Cranmer and his associates. 
If I mistake not, that service, as it came from the hands of the 
reformers, did not contain a sentence inconsistent with the opi- 
nions which I have ascribed to them. Above an hundred years 
afterwards, in the reign of Charles l\. this service was revised and 



144 LETTER VI. 

altered ; and it is remarkable, that the greater part of the altera- 
tions were such as indicate a decided intention in their authors to 
make the whole speak a language more favourable to the divine 
appointment of episcopacy than formerly. In the opinion of good 
judges, the ordination service of the church of England does not 
even now^ assert the divine institution of prelacy ; but as left by the 
reformers, it certainly contained no such doctrine. 

In conformity with this principle, an act of Parliament was passed, 
in the 13th year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, to reform certain 
disorders touching ministers of the church. This act, as Dr. 
Strype, an Episcopal historian, informs us, was framed with an 
express view to admitting into the church oi England, those who 
had received Presbyterian ordination in the foreign reformed 
churches, on their subscribing the articles oi faith. But can we 
suppose that both houses of parliament, one of them including the 
bench of Bishops, would have consented to pass such an act, un- 
less the principle of it had been approved by the most influential 
divines of that church ? 

Nor was this all. The conduct of the English Reformers cor- 
responded with their laws and public standards. They invited 
several eminent divines from the foreign Reformed churches, who 
had received no other than Presbyterian ordination, to come over 
to England; and on their arrival, in consequence of this formal in- 
vitation, actually bestowed upon them important benefices in the 
Church and in the Universities. A more decisive testimony could 
scarcely be given, that those great and venerable divines had no 
scruple respecting the validity of ordination by presbyters. Had 
they held the opinion of some modern Episcopalians, and at the 
same time acted thus, they would have been chargeable with high 
treason against the Redeemer's kingdom, and have merited the 
reprobation of all honest men. 

But further; besides inviting these distinguished divines into 
England, and giving them a place in the bosom of their church, 
without requiring them to be re-ordained, Archbishops Cran- 
mer and Grindal, and their associates, corresponded with Calvin ; 
solicited his opinion respecting many points in the reformation of 
the church; and not only acknowledged him in the most explicit 
manner, to be a regular minister of Christ, and the church of Gene- 
vtty to be a sister church ; but also addressed him in terms of the 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 145 

most exalted reverence, and heaped upon him every epithet of 
honour. Could they have done all this, if they had considered him 
subverting the very foundation of the church, by setting aside pre- 
lacy ? When I look at the language of the first British reform 
ers towards this venerable servant of Christy when I hear them, not 
only celebrating his learning and his piety in the strongest terms, 
but also acknowledging, in terms equally strong, his noble services 
in the cause of evangelical truth, and of the Reformation; and when 
I find the greatest divines that England ever bred, for near a cen- 
tury afterwards, adopting and repeating the same language, I am 
tempted to ask — are some modern calumniators of Calvin really 
ignorant of whatthese great divines of their own church have thought 
and said respecting him ; or have they apostatised as much from the 
principles of their own reformers, as they differ from Calvin ? 

Another testimony as to the light in which ordination by pres- 
byters was viewed by the mosjt distinguished reformers of the 
Church of England, is found in a iHense granted by archbishop 
Grindal, to the Rev. John Morison, a Presbyterian minister, 
dated April 6, 1582 : " Since you, the said John Morison, were 
^^ admitted and ordained io sacred orders, and the holy ministry 
" by the imposition of hands, according to the laudable form and 
" rite of the reformed church of Scotland. We, therefore, as much 
" as lies in us, and as by right we may, approving and ratifying 
" the form of your ordination and preferment, done in such 
" manner aforesaid, grant unto you a license and faculty, that in 
" such orders, by you taken, you may, and have power, in any 
"convenient places, in and throughout the whole province of 
" Canterbury, to celebrate divine offices, and to minister the sacra- 
" ments," &c. Here is not only an explicit acknowledgment that 
ordination by presbyters is valid, but an eulogium on it as laudable, 
and this not by an obscure character, but by the primate of the 
Church of England. 

An acknowledgment, still more solemn and decisive, is made in 
one of the Canons of the Church of England, in which all her 
clergy are commanded " to pray for the churches of England, 
" Scotland, and Ireland, as parts of Christ's holy Catholic church, 
" which is dispersed throughout the world.'' This canon (the 55th) 
among others, was enacted in l604, when the church of Scotland 
was, as it now is, Presbyterian ; and although the persons who 
T 



146 LETTER VI. 

were chiefly instrumental in forming and adopting these canons, 
had high episcopal notions ; yet the idea that those churches which 
were not episcopal in their form, were not to be considered as true 
churches of Christ, seeras at this time to have been entertained by 
no person of any influence in the church of England. This 
extravagance was reserved for after times, and the invention of it 
for persons of a very different spirit from that of the Cranmers, the 
Grinclalsy and the Abbots of the preceding age. 

Dr. Wat-nerf a learned episcopal historian, declares, that 
" Archbishop Bancroft was ihefrst man in the church of Etig- 
" land who preached up the divine right of Episcopacy." The 
same is asserted by many other episcopal writers ; and this pas- 
sage from Warner is quoted with approbation by bishop White of 
Pennsylvania, in his Case of the Episcopal Churches, in showing 
that the doctrine which founds Episcopacy on divine right, has 
never been embraced by the greac body of the most esteemed 
divines in the church of Englg^nd. 

Another fact which corroborates the foregoing statement is, that 
Dr. Laud, afterwards Archbishop, in a public disputation before 
the University of Oxford, venturing to assert the superiority of 
bishops, by divine right, was publicly checked by Dr. Holland, 
professor of divinity in that university, who told him that " he was 
" a schismatic, and went about to make a division between the 
English and other reformed churches." 

The reformation in Scotland commenced in the year 1560. 
The constitution of that Church was formed, as every one knows, 
on the Presbyterian plan. This form was retained until the year 
1610, when prelacy was violently introduced, against the sense of 
the nation. In that year Spotiswood, Lamb, and Hamilton, were 
consecrated bishops in London, by some of the English prelates ; 
and on their return home, imparted the episcopal dignity to a num- 
ber of others. As they had been presbyters before this time, 
archbishop Bancroft proceeded to their consecration as bishops, 
without requiring them to be previously re-ordained as priests, 
expressly delivering it as his opinion, that their former Presbyte- 
rian ordination was valid. The church of Scotland remained 
episcopal until the year 1639, when prelacy was abolished, and 
the bishops deposed. On this occasion three of these prelates 
renounced their episcopal orders, were received by the Presbyterian 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 147 

clergy as plain presbyters, and officiated as such while they lived. 
The rest were either excommunicated from the church, or deprived 
of their ministerial functions. In the year I661, Episcopacy was 
again introduced into Scotland, and remained the established 
religion of the country until the Revolution of 1688, when it was 
again set aside, and Presbyterianism restored, which remains to the 
present day. 

Now it is a remarkable fact, that, amidst all these revolutions in 
the church government of Scotland, the validity of ordination by^ 
presbyters, was never denied or called in question. We have 
already seen that Archbishop Bancroft pronounced the Presbyte- 
rian ordination of <Spo<fszi700c?, LamS, and Hamilton, \o be valid. 
But further; in 16IO, when prelacy was first established, the 
bishops agreed that the body of the Presbyterian clergy should be 
considered as regular ministers in the church, on consenting to 
acknowledge them as their ecclesiastical superiors, without sub- 
mitting to be re-ordained. And this arrangement was actually 
carried into effect. Again, in 1661, at the second introduction of 
episcopacy, the same plan of accommodation was agreed upon and 
executed, though a much smaller number of the clergy submitted 
to its terms. And, which is a fact no less decisive, at the revolution 
in 1688, when Presbyterianism was restored, four hundred 
episcopal clergymen came into the bosom of the Presbyterian 
church, acknowledged the validity of her orders and ministrations, 
and were received into connexion with her on the basis of such 
acknowledgment. Nor is this all. About the time of the first 
introduction of Episcopacy into Scotland, a number of the people 
and their clergy, who were all Presbyterian, removed from that 
country into the north of Ireland, where Episcopacy was also 
established. To accommodate a number of the clergy, who were 
in this situation, the bishops in England drew up and transmitted 
to Ireland ?i plan of proceeding in their case, which recognized the 
validity of their ordination, and by means of which, without being 
re-ordained, they were actually incorporated with the established 
church. It is not possible to contemplate this series of facts, 
without perceiving, as Bishop Burnet declares, that, for a long 
time after the commencement of the reformation in Great Britain, 
the validity of Presbyterian ordination was distinctly and uniformly 
acknowledged. 



148 LETTER VI. 

It were easy to fill a volume with testimony to the same amount. 
But it is not necessary. If there be any fact in the history of the 
British churches capable of being demonstrated, it is, that their 
venerable reformers uniformly acknowledged the other protestant 
churches formed on the Presbyterian plan, to be sound mem- 
bers of the Universal Church, and maintained a constant and 
affectionate intercourse with them as such. This is so evident 
from their writings and their conduct, and has been so fully 
conceded by the ablest and most impartial judges among Episco- 
palians themselves, that it would be a waste of time further to 
pursue the proof. 

From the English reformers let us pass on to those distinguished 
worthies who were made the instruments of reformation on the 
continent of Europe. Luther began this glorious work in German^/, 
in the year 1517. About the same time the standard of truth was 
raised by Zuingle, in Switzerland ; and soon afterwards these 
great men were joined by Carlostadt,Melanct7ion, Oecolampadius, 
Calvin, Beza, and others. The pious exertions of these witnesses 
for the truth were as eminently blessed as they were active and 
unwearied. Princes, and a multitude of less celebrated divines, 
came their to help. Insomuch that before the close of that century, 
numerous and flourishing Protestant churches were planted through- 
out G^er/waw?/, Fronce, /Si^z^-ser/awe^, the Low Countries, Sweden, 
Denmark, and various other parts of Europe, from the Mediter- 
ranean to the confines oi Russia, 

Now it is well known that all these Protestants on the continent 
of Europe, when they threw off the fetters of papal authority, and 
were left free to follow the word of God, without any exception, 
recognized the doctrine of ministerial parity, and embraced it, not 
only in theory, but also in practice. They established all their 
churches on the basis of that principle ; and to the present hour 
bear testimony in its favour. This may be abundantly proved, 
by recurring to their original confessions of faith ; to their best 
writers ; and to their uniform proceedings. 

When the churches began to assume a systematic and organized 
form, they were all arranged by ecclesiastical writers under two 
grand divisions — the reformed 'di\A the Lutheran. The reformed 
churches, which were established in France, Holland, Switzer- 
land, Geneva, and in some pans of Germany, from the beginning, 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 149 

as is universally known, laid aside diocesan bishops; and have 
never, at any period, had an episcopal government, either in name 
or in fact. That these churches might have had episcopal ordina- 
tion, and the whole system of prelacy, continued among them,- if 
they had chosen to retain them, no one can doubt who is acquaint- 
ed with their history. But they early embraced the doctrine of 
ministerial parity y which had been so generally adopted by 
preceding witnesses for the truth ; and erected an ecclesiastical 
organization in conformity with this doctrine. Accordingly, the 
venerable founders of those churches, having been themselves 
ordained pi^esbijters by Romish bisliops ; believing that the 
difference between these two classes of ministers was not appointed 
by Jesus Christ or his apostles, but invented by the church ; and 
persuaded that, according to the practice of the primitive church, 
presbyters were fully invested with the ordaining power, they 
proceeded to ordain others, and thus transmitted the ministerial 
succession to those who came after them. 

But it is said, that, although the reformers of France, Holland, 
Geneva, Scotland, &c. thought proper to organize their churches 
on the Presbyterian principle of parity 5 yet that Calvin, Beza, and 
other eminent divines of great authority in those churches, frequent- 
ly expressed sentiments very favourable to diocesan Episcopacy, 
and spoke with great respect of the English hierarchy. It is not 
denied that those illustrious reformers, on a variety of occasions, 
expressed themselves in very respectful terms of the church of 
England, as it stood in their day. But whether we consider the 
sentiments which they expressed, or the circumstances under which 
they delivered them, no use can be made of this fact favourable to 
the cause of our opponents. The truth is, the English reformers, 
prevented, on the one hand, by the croion and the papists, from 
carrying the reformation so for as they wished ; and on the other, 
urged by the Puritans, to remove at once, all abuses out of the 
church, wrote to the reformers at Geneva, whom they knew to 
have much influence in England, soliciting their aid, in quieting 
the minds of the Puritans, and in persuading them to remain in the 
bosom of the church, in the hope of a more complete reformation 
afterwards. Is it wonderful, that, at a crisis of this kind, Calvin 
and Beza, considering the church of England as struggling with 
difficulties; viewing Cranmer and his associates as eminently 



150 LETTER VI. 

pious men, who were doing the best they could in existing circum- 
stances ; hoping for more favourable times ; and not regarding the 
form of church government aa an essential, should write to the 
English reformers in a manner calculated to quiet the minds of 
the Puritans, and induce them to remain in connexion with the 
national church ? This they did. But in all their communications, 
they never went further than to say, that they considered the 
hierarchy of England as a judicious and respectable human 
institution; and that they could, without any violation of the 
dictates of conscience, reuiain in communion with such a church. 
And what is the inference from this ? Could not thousands of the 
firmest Presbyterians on earth, under similar circumstances, say the 
same ? But did Calvin or Beza ever say, even in their most 
unguarded moments, that they considered prelacy as an institution 
of Christ, or bis apostles? Did they ever express a preference of 
this form of government to the Presbyterian form ? Did they, in 
short, ever do more than acknowledge that Episcopacy might, in 
some cases, be useful and lawful? But, on the other hand, how 
much these same reformers have said against prelacy, and in 
favour of ministerial parity; how strongly they have asserted, and 
how clearly they have proved, the former to be a human invention, 
and the latter to have the sanction of apostolic example; and how 
decidedly they speak in favour of Presbyterian principles, even in 
some of their most complaisant letters to the English reformers, 
our opponents take care not to state.* Their caution is politic. 
For no human ingenuity will ever be able to refute the reasonings 
which those excellent men have left on record against the episcopal 
cause.t 

* It is almost incredible how far the declarations of Calvin on this sub- 
ject, have been misunderstood and misrepresented. Who would imagine, 
when that venerable reformer, in his Institutes, represents the scriptures 
as affording a warrant for three classes of church officers, viz. teaching 
elders, ruling elders, and deacons, tliat any could interpret the passage as 
favouring the doctrine of three orders of c/er^y P 

f Beza, in his celebrated work De TripUci Episcopatu, declares that 
there are /Aree kinds of Episcopacy : The first, instituted by Christ, in 
which all pastors are equally iwAops. This he calls divine episcopacy. 
The second, instituted by man, in which certain aged and venerable 
presbyters are ;?resic?m^5 or worfcm/ors for life, without any new ordina- 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 151 

With respect to the Lutheran churches, it is known to all well 
informed persons, that Ihey also, from the beginning rejected dio- 
cesan episcopacy, considered as an institution of Christ, and have, 
to the present time, acted on this principle, acknowledging but one 
order in the christian ministry. I know that attempts have fre- 
quently been made to give a different representation of this matter. 
Whether these attempts have arisen from ignorance, or from a less 
excusable source, I will not inquire 5 but the position which they 
aim to establish is unquestionably groundless. Luther, the great 
founder of the church which bears his name, gave a practical de- 
claration of his opinion on this subject, by one decisive fact, which 
is, that, though only in pries fs orders, he himself undertook, in 
1524, a few years after commencing the work of reformation, to 
ordain, and actually performed this rite, with great solemnity. 
His coadjutors and followers, though of no higher ecclesiastical dig- 
nity than himself, did the same. Could more decisive testimony 
be given as to the principles of the first Lutherans on this subject. 

It is true, Luther and the leading divines of his denomination, 
differed from Calvin and his associates, with respect to one point 
in church government. The latter totally rejected all ministerial 
imparity. The former supposed that a system embracing some 
decree of imparity, was, in general, expedient; and accordingly, 
in proceeding to organize their churches, appoinled superi7itendanis, 
who enjoyed a kind of pre-eminence, and were vested with pecu- 
har powers. But they explicitly acknowledged this office to be a 
human, and not a divine institution. The superintendanfs in ques- 
tion were mere presbyters, and received no new ordination in con- 
sequence of their appointment to this office. The opinion of their 
being a distinct and superior order of clergy, was formally rejected. 
And all regular Presbyterian ordinations were recognized by the 
church in which they presided, as valid. Nor have modern Lu- 
therans apostatised in any of these points from the principles of 
their fathers. In all the Lutheran churches in America, and in 
Europe, to the south of Sweden, there are no bishops. Their su- 
perintendants, or seniors, have no other ordination than that of 

tion: Ms he caWs human episcopacy. The third, m which prelates are 
regarded as a superior order, he sytles Satanical episcopacy. This 
statement Is introduced merely to show with how little propriety Beza 
can be quoted as a friend to prelacy. 



152 LETTER VI. 

presbyters. When they are not present, other presbyters ordain 
without a scruple. And the ordinations practised in Presbyterian 
churches they acknowledge to be as valid as their own ; and accord- 
ingly receive into full ministerial standing, those who have been 
ordained in this manner. 

The testimony of Dr. Mosheim, the celebrated ecclesiastical his- 
torian, who was himself a zealous and distinguished Lutheran, will 
doubtless be considered as conclusive on this subject. He remarks, 
(Vol. iv. p. 287.) that "the internal government of the Lutheran 
" church is equal[y removed from Episcopacy on the one hand, and 
" from Presbyterianism on the other 5 if we except the kingdoms 
" of Sweden and Denmark, who retain the form of ecclesiastical 
" government that preceded the reformation, purged, indeed, from 
" the superstition and abuses that rendered it so odious. This con- 
" stitution of the Lutheran hierarchy will not seem surprising, when 
" the sentiments of that people with regard to ecclesiastical polity 
" are duly considered. On the one hand, they are persuaded that 
" there is no law of divine authority, which points out a distinction 
'^ between the ministers of the gospel, with respect to rank, dignity, 
" or prerogatives ; and therefore they recede from episcopacy, 
" But, on the other hand, they are of opinion, that a certain suitor, 
" dinalion, a diversity in point of rank and privileges among the 
" clergy, are not only highly useful, but also necessary to the per- 
" fection of church communion, by connecting, in consequence of 
" a mutual dependence, more closely together the members of the 
" same body ; and thus they avoid the uniformity of the Fresby- 
" terian government. They are not, however, agreed with respect 
" to the extent of this subordination and the degrees of superiority 
" and precedence that ought to distinguish their doctors ; for in 
*^ some places this is regulated with much more regard to the 
" ancient rules of church government, than is discovered in others. 
*• As the divine law is silent on this head, different opinions may be 
" entertained, and different forms of ecclesiastical polity adopted, 
" without a breach of christian charity, and fraternal union." 

In perfect correspondence with this representation, it is an 
undoubted fact, that the church oi England, and those of the same 
sect in this country, consider the Lutheran church as being desti- 
tute of an authorized ministry, and her ordinations as comj)letely a 
nuUity as those in Presbyterian churches. You have seen, in oui 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 153 

own city, a Lutheran minister, on uniting himself with the Episco- 
pal church, re-ordained,* and the baptism of his children, which 
had been performed by the venerable senior of the Lutheran church 
in this State, pronounced invalid, and performed a second time by 
episcopal clergyman. If the lautherans are Episcopalians in the 
same sense with the church of England, why treat their church 
with this pointed disrespect? If they have no claim to this title, 
why, for the purpose of endeavouring to support by the weight of 
numbers an unscriptural principle, is the contrary insinuated ? 

But although the Lutherans in America and in the south of 
Europe are not episcopal ; perhaps it will be contended, that this 
form obtains among the Lutherans of Sweden. This plea, however 
like the former, is altogether destitute of solidity. It is readily 
granted that the Lutheran churches in that kingdom have officers 
whom they style bishops ; but when we examine the history and the 
principles of those churches with respect to their clergy, these bish- 
ops will be found to have no other character, according to the 
doctrine of the church of England, than that of mere presbyters. 
For, in ihejirst place, all ecclesiastical historians agree, that when 
the reformation was introduced into Sweden, the first ministers who 
undertook to ordain -wexQ ox\\y presbyters. Their ministerial suc- 
cession, of course, flowing through such a channel, cannot include 
any ecclesiastical dignity higher than that of presbyter. Further ; in 
Swedish churches it is not only certain Xhd^i presbyters, in the absence 
of those who are styled bishops, ordain common ministers, without 
a scruple ; but it is equally certain, that in the ordination of a bishop, 
if the other bishops happen to be absent, the more grave and aged 
of the ordinary pastors supply their place, and are considered as 
fully invested with the ordaining power. Finally ; the Swedish 
churches explicitly renounce all claim of divine right for their 
ecclesiastical government. They acknowledge that the Scriptures 
contain no warrant for more than one order of gospel ministers jt 
that their system rests on no other ground than human expediency ; 
and that an adherence to it is by no means necessary either to the 
validity or regularity of christian ordinances. 

* The Rev. George Sirebeck, late pastor of Zion church, in Mott-streeti 
now minister of St. Stephen's Church, in the Bowery, 
t The Swedish churches wholly discard deacons2& an order of clergy. 
U 



154 LETTER VI. 

Several of the foregoing remarks apply to the United Brethren 
or Moravians. They, indeed, have BisJiops in their churches. 
But they explicitly renounce all claim of Divine right for their 
system. Of course, they utterly deny the necessity of Episcopal 
ordination in order to the institution of a valid ministry. And, in 
full consistency with this belief, they freely admit into their church, 
clergymen who have received no other than Presbyterian ordina- 
tion, without requiring them to be re-ordained. They have, and 
have long had, a large number of this class actually incorporated 
with the rest of their clergy, and standing on a perfect level with 
those who have been ordained by their bishops.* 

Finally 5 in order to swell the list of episcopal churches as 
much as possible, the Methodist church is frequently represented 
as such ; but how justly, a little examination will evince. Mr. 
Wesley jihe venerable founder of that church, when he undertook, 
a number of years ago, to digest a plan for its external organization, 
especially in the United States, formally avowed himself to be of 
the opinion, with Lord Chancellor King, that Bishop and Prehy- 
ter, in the primitive church, were the same. And in perfect con- 
formity with this belief, he himself, being only a pres6?/^er in the 
church oi England^ united with other presbyters in ordaining mi- 
nisters for his new church. These presbyters ordained the first 
Methodist Bishops, from whom all succeeding ordinations in 
that body have been derived. So that in the Methodist church, 
there is no other, strictly speaking, than Presbyterian ordination 
to the present hour. In consistency with this acknowledged fact, 
they receive, without re-ordination, ministers who have been or- 
dained by Presbyters alone in other churches. They practise 
their own ordination, which is acknowledged by themselves to be no 
other than Presbyterian, in Scotland, where they are surrounded 
with Episcopal Bishops, whose ordination might be obtained, if it 
were deemed necessary. In a word, though, for the purposes of 
government, they have ministers of different titles and ranks; yet 
they neither possess, nor recognize any higher power than that of 
Presbyters. And, what confirms the representation I have given 
is, that when Methodist ministers consider it as their duty to enter 

* See£ Concise Historical Account of the Constitution of the Unitas Fra 
trum. 8vo. Lond. 1775. 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 155 

the Episcopal church, they are always laid under the necessity of 
practically renouncing their former orders, and submitting to be 
re-ordained. 

If I mistake not, I have now demonstrated, that the whole body 
of the reformers, with scarcely any exceptions, agreed in maintain- 
ing that ministerial parity was the doctrine of scripture, and of the 
primitive church : That all the reformed churches, excepting that 
ofEnglandj were organized on this principle ; and that even those 
great men who finally settled her government and worship, did not 
consider prelacy as founded on divine appointment, but only as 
resting on the basis of expediency. In short, there is complete 
evidence, that the church of England stands alone in making 
bishops an order of clergy superior to presbyters ; nay, that 
every other protestant church on earth, has formally disclaimed 
the divine right of diocesan Episcopacy, and pronounced it to be 
a mere human invention. 

Now is it credible, my brethren, that a body of such men as the 
early reformers ; men who to great learninof, added the most exalt- 
ed piety, zeal, and devotedness to the truth ; men who counted not 
their lives dear to them that they might maintain what appeared 
to them the purity of faith and order in the church ; is it credible 
that SMC^ men, living in different countries, embarrassed with 
different prejudices, all educated under the system of diocesan 
bishops, and all surrounded with ministers and people still warmly 
attached to this system : Is it credible, I say, that such men, thus 
situated, should, when left free to examine the scriptures and the 
early fathers on this subject, with almost perfect unanimity, agree 
in pronouncing prelacy to be a human invention, and ministerial 
parity to be the doctrine of scripture, if the testimony in favour of 
this opinion had not been perfectly clear and conclusive ? It is not 
credible. We may suppose Calvin and Beza to have embraced 
their opinions on this subject from prejudice, arising out of their 
situation ; but that Luther, Melancthon, and all the leading 
reformers on the continent of Europe, differently situated, and 
with different views on other points, should embrace the same 
opinion ; that Cranmer, Grindal, and other prelates in Britain^ 
though partaking in the highest honours of an episcopal system, 
should entirely concur in that opinion ; that all this illustrious body 
of men, scattered through the whole protestant world, should agree 



156 LETTER VI. 

in declaring ministerial parity to be the doctrine of scripture and 
of the primitive church ; and all this from mere prejudice, in 
direct opposition to scripture, and early history, is one, of the most 
incredible suppositions that can be formed by the human mind. 

I repeat again, the question before us is not to be decided by 
human opinion, or by the number ot respectability of the advocates 
which appear on either side. We are not to be governed by the 
judgment of reformers, or by the practice of the churches which 
they planted. But so far as these considerations have any weight, 
they are clearly and unquestionably on the side of Presbyterian 
parity. 



( 157 ) 



LETTER VII. 

CONCESSIONS OF EMINENT EPISCOPALIANS. 

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

The concessions of opponents alvvays carry with thera peculiar 
weight. The opinions of Presbyterians, in this controversy, like 
the testimony of all men in their own favour, will of course be 
received with suspicion and allowance. But when decided and 
zealous Episcopalians ; men who stand high as the defenders and 
the ornaments of Episcopacy; men whose prejudice and interest 
were all enlisted in the support of the episcopal system ; when 
these are found to have conceded the main points in this controver- 
sy, they give us advantages of the most decisive kind. Some 
instances of this sort, I shall now proceed to state. 

When I exhibit episcopal divines as making concessions in 
favour of our doctrine, none certainly will understand me as mean 
ing to assert, that they were Presbyterians in principle. So far 
from this, the chief value of their concessions consists in being 
made by decided friends of Episcopacy. Neither will you under- 
stand me to assert, that none of these writers say any thing, in 
other parts of their works, inconsistent with these concessions. 
Few men who write and publish much, are at all times so guarded 
as never to be inconsistent with themselves. It is enough for me 
to know what language they employed, when they undertook 
•professedly to state their opinions on the subject before us, and 
when they were called upon by every motive to write with caution 
and precision. You will likewise find most of these writers, 
differing among themselves; some taking higher ground, and 
others lower. For this you are doubtless prepared, after being 
informed that there are three classes of Episcopalians, as slated in 
my first letter. 

Some of the concessions which might with propriety be here 
introduced, have been already exhibited in various parts of the 
foregoing letters. You have been told that Mr. Dodwell frankly 



158 LETTER VII. 

acknowledges that bishops, as an order superior Xopreshyters, are 
not to be found in the New Testament; that such an order had no 
existence till the beginning of the second century ; XhdX presbyters 
were the highest ecclesiastical officers left in commission by the 
apostles; and, of course, that the first diocesan bishops were 
ordained by presbyters. On the other hand, Dr. Hammond, per- 
haps the ablest advocate of prelacy that ever lived, warmly 
contends, that in the days of the apostles there were none but 
bishops; the second grade of ministers, now ^iy\ed presbyters, not 
having been appointed till after the close of the canon ofscriptare. 
Now, if neither of these great men could find both bishops and 
presbijters, as different orders, in the New Testament ; however 
ingeniously they endeavour to extricate themselves from the 
difficulty, it will amount, in the opinion of all the impartial, to a 
fundamental concession. In like manner you have seen, that the 
arguments drawn from the episcopal character of Timothy and 
Titus, from the model of the Jewish Priesthood, and from the 
Angels of the Asiatic churches, have been fornially abandoned, 
and pronoun(ied to be of no value, by some of the ablest champions 
of Episcopacy. The same might be proved with respect to all the 
arguments which are derived from scripture in support of the 
episcopal cause. But let us pass on to some more general 
concessions. 

The papists, before as well as since the reformation, have been 
the warmest advocates for prelacy, that the church ever knew. 
Yet it would be easy to show, by a series of quotations, that many 
of the most learned men of that denomination, of different periods 
and nations, have held, and explicitly taught, that bishops and 
presbyters were the same in the primitive church ; and that the 
difference between them, though deemed both useful and necessary, 
is only a human institution. But instead of a long list of autho- 
rities to establish this point, I shall content myself with producing 
four, the first two from Great Britain, and the others from the 
continent of Europe, 

The judgment of the church of England on this subject, in the 
times of popery, we have in the canons of Elfrick, in the year 990, 
to Bishop Wolfin, in which bishops and presbyters are declared to 
be of the same order. To the same amount is the judgment of 
Anaelme, archbishop of Canterbury , who died about the year 1109| 



CONCESSIONS OP EPISCOPALIANS. 159 

and who was perhaps the most learned man of the age in which he 
lived. He explicitly tells us, that, " by the apostolic institution, 
all presbyters are bishops" See his Commentary on Titus and 
Philip. 

In the canon law we find the following decisive declaration 
" Bishop and presbyter were the same in the primitive church ; 
" presbyter being the name of the person's age, and bishop of his 
" ojice. But there being many of these in every church, they 
" determined among themselves, for the preventing of schism, that. 
" one should be elected by themselves to be set over the rest ; and 
" the person so elected was called bishop, for distinction sake. 
" The rest were called presbyters ; and in process of time, their 
" reverence for these titular bishops so increased, that they began to 
" obey them as children do a father." Just. Leg. Can. I. 21. 

Cassander, a learned catholic divine, who flourished in the l6th 
century, in his book of Consultations, Art. 14. has the following 
passage : " Whether Episcopacy is to be accounted an ecclesiasti- 
" cal order, distinct from presbytery, is a question much debated 
" between theologues and canonists. But in this one particular, 
^^ all parties agree. That in the apostles' days there was no 
" difference between a bishop and a presbyter ; but afterwards, 
"for the avoiding of schism, the bishop was placed before the 
"presbyter, to whom the power of ordination was granted, that so 
" peace might be continued in the church." 

It has been observed, that all the first reformers of the church of 
England, freely acknowledged bishops and presbyters to have 
been the same in the apostolic age ; and only defended diocesan 
Episcopacy as a wise human appointment. It was asserted, on 
high episcopal authority, in the preceding letter, that Dr. Bancroft, 
then chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift, was the first protestant 
divine in England, who attempted to place Episcopacy on the 
foundation of divine right. In 1588, in a sermon delivered on a 
public occasion, he undertook to maintain, " that the bishops of 
" England were a distinct order from priests, and had superiority 
" over them by divine right, and directly from God ; and that the 
" denial of it was heresy." This sermon gave great offence to 
many of the clergy and laity. Among others, Sir Francis Knollys, 
much dissatisfied with the doctrine which it contained, wrote to 
Dr. Raignolds, professor of divinity in the University of Oxford, 



160 LETTER VII. 

for his opinion on the subject. That learned professor, who is said 
to have been the " oracle of the university in his day,"* returned 
an answer, which, among other things, contains the following 
passages. 

" Of the two opinions' which your honour mentions in the ser- 
" mon of Dr. Bancroft^ the first is that which asserts the superiori- 
" ty which the prelates among us have over the clergy, to be a 
" divine institution. He does not, indeed, assert this in express 
" terms, but he does it by necessary consequence, in which he 
" affirms the opinion of those that oppose that superiority to be an 
"heresy; in which, in my judgment, he has committed an over- 
" sight; and I believe he himself will acknowledge it, if duly 
*' admonished concerning it. All that have laboured in reforming 
" the church, for 500 years past, have taught that all pastors, 
" be they entitled hishops or priests, have equal authority and 
" power bi/ God's Word ; as first the Waldenses, next Marsilius 
" Peiavinus, then WicMiffe and his disciples ; afterwards Huss 
" and the Hussites ; and last of all Luther, Calvin, Brenlius 
" Bullinger, and Musculus. Among ourselves we have bishops, 
** the Queen's professors of divinity in our universities ; and other 
" learned men, as Bradford, Lambert, Jewel, Pilkington, Hum- 
^^phreys, Fulfce, who all agree in this matter ; and so do all divines 
" beyond sea that I ever read, and doubtless many more whom I 
" never read. But what do I speak of particular persons ? It is 
" the common judgment of the reformed Churches of Helvetia, 
'* Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany j Hungary, Poland, the 
" Low- Countries, and our own, (the church of England). Where- 
" fore, since Dr. Bancroft will certainly never pretend that an 
" heresy, condemned by the consent of the whole church in its 
" most flourishing times, was yet accounted a sound and christian 
** doctrine by all thess I have mentioned, I hope he will acknow- 
" ledge that he was mistaken when he asserted the superiority 

* Professor Raigndds was acknowledged by all his contemporaries to 
be a prodigy of learning. Bishop Hall used to say, that his memory and 
reading were near a miracle. He was particulai'ly conversant with the 
fathers and early historians; was a critic in the languages; was celebrated 
for his wit; and so eminent for piety and sanctity of life, that Cra- 
kenthorp said of him, that '* to name Raignolds was to commend virtue 
itself." 



CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 161 

i^ which bishops have among us over the clergy, to be God's own 
^^ ordinance^'* Archbishop Whitgift, referring to the great 
attention which Bancrofts sermon had excited, observed, that it 
" had done good ;" but added, that with respect to the offensive 
doctrine which it contained, he " rather wished, than believed it to 
be true." 

The same Archbishop Wiitgift, in his book against Cartwrighf, 
has the following full and explicit declarations: Having distin- 
guished between those things which are so necessary, that without' 
them we cannot be saved ; and such as are so necessary, that 
without them we cannot so icell and conveniently ht saved, he 
adds, " I confess, that in a church collected together in one place, 
" and at liberty, government is necessary with the second kind of 
" necessity; but that any kind of government is so^necessary that 
" without it the church cannot be saved, or that it may not be 
" altered into some other kind, thought to be more expedient, I 
" utterly deny, and the reasons that move me so to do, be these: 
" the first is, because I find no one certain and perfect kind of 
"government prescribed or commanded in the scriptures, to the 
" church of Christ ; which, no doubt, should have been done, if it 
" had been a matter necessary to the salvation of the church. 
" There is no certain kind of government or discipline prescribed 
" to the church ; but the same may be altered, as the profit of the 
" churches requires. — I do deny that the scriptures do set down 
"any one certain kind of government in the church to be perpetual 
" for all times, places, and persons, without alteration. — It is well 
" known that the manner and form of government used in the 
" apostles' tinae, and expressed in the scriptures, neither is row, 
" nor can, nor ought to be observed, either touching the persons 
" or the functions,* We see manifestly, that, in sundry points, 

* See the letter at large in Boyse on Episcopacy, p. 13 — 19. 

■j- It has been said that Archbishop Whitgift, in this passage, merely 
meant to say that all the details of ecclesiastical discipline are not laid down 
in scripture, nor to be considered as of divine right. But he utterly 
precludes this construction, by declaring that he considers no form of 
government as of unalterable divine appointment, either with respect to 
persons or functions. He could scarcely have employed language to 
express the opinion which we ascribe to him, more perspicuously or 
decisively. 

X 



162 LETTER Vll. 

" the government of the church used in the apostles' time, is, and 
" hath been of necessity, altered; and that it neither may nor can 
" be revoked. Whereby it is plain, that any one kind of external 
"government perpetually to be observed, is no where in the 
" scripture prescribed to the church, but the charge thereof is left 
" to the magistrate, so that nothing be done contrary to the word 
" of God. This is the opinion of the best writers ; neither do I 
" know any learned man of a contrary judgment.^^ 

Dr. Willet, a distinguished divine of the church of England, in 
the reign of Elizabeth, in his Synopsis Papismi, a large and 
learned work, dedicated to that Queen, undertakes professedly to 
deliver the opinion of his Church on the subject before us. Out 
of much which might be quoted, the following passages are suf- 
ficient for our purpose : " Every godly and faithful bishop is a 
"successor of the apostles. We deny it not; and so are all 
*^ faithful and godly pastors and ministers. For in respect of their 
" extraordinary calling, miraculous gifts, and apostleship, the 
" apostles have properly no successors; as Mr. Beinhridge, the 
" martyr saith, that he believed not bishops to be the successors of 
" the apostles, for that they be not called as they were, nor have 
"that grace. That, therefore, which the apostles were especially 
" appointed unto, is the thing wherein the apostles were properly 
" succeeded ; but that was the preaching of the gospel : as St. Paul 
<* saith, he was sent to preach, not to baptize. The promise of suc- 
" cession, we see, is in the preaching of the word, which appertain- 
** eth as well to other pastors and ministers as to bishops." Again ; 
" seeing in the apostles' time episcopus and presbyter, a bishop 
*' and a priest, were neither in name nor ojice distinguished ; it 
'^ foUoweth, then, that either the apostles assigned no succession 
" while they lived, neither appointed their successors ; or that 
" indifferently, all faithful pastors and preachers of the apostolic 
" faith are the apostles' successors." Conirov. v. Quest. 3. p. 
232. "Of the difference between bishops and priests, there are 
"three opinions: the Jirst, of Aerius, who did hold that all 
" ministers should be equal ; and that a bishop was not, neither 
" ought to be superior to a priest. The second opinion is the 
** other extreme of the papists, who would have not only a 
" difference, but a princely pre-eminence of their bishops over the 
<« clergy, and that by the word of God. And they urge it to be so 



CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 163 

" necessary, that they are no true churches which receive not their 
" pontifical hierarchy. The third opinion is between both, that 
" although this distinction of bishops and priests, as it is now 
" received, cannot beproved out of scripture ; 3'et it is very neces- 
" sary, for the policy of the church, to avoid schisms, and to 
" preserve it in unity. Of this judgment. Bishop Jewre/ against 
" Harding f showeth both Chri/sostom, Ambrose, and Jerome, to 
" have been. Jerome thus writeth, ' the apostle teaches evidently 
"that bishops and priests were the same ; but that one was after- 
" wards chosen to be set over the rest as a remedy against schism.' 
" To this opinion of St. Jerome, subscribeth bishop Jeioel, and ano- 
" ther most reverend prelate of our church, Archbishop Whilgift,'' 
p. 273. Dr. Willet also expressly renounces the argument drawn 
by many Episcopalians from the Jeivish priesthood. In answer 
to a celebrated popish writer, who had, with great confidence, 
adduced this argument, to support the authority of bishops, as an 
order superior to presbyters, he observes : First, " the high priest 
*' under the law was a figure of Christ, who is the high priest and 
" chief Shepherd of the New Testament : and therefore this type, 
" being fulfilled in Christ, cannot properly be applied to the exter- 
" nal hierarchy of the church. Secondly, if every bishop be this 
" high priest, then have you lost one of your best arguments for 
" the Pope, whom you would have to be the high priest in the 
" church."* This champion of the church of England further 
concedes : " That it may be doubted whether Timothy were 
" so ordained by the apostle bishop of Ephesus, as a bishop 
" is now set over his diocese ; for then the apostle would never 
"have called him so often from his charge, sending him to 
<* the Corinthians, to the Thessalonians, and to other churches 
" beside. It is most likely that Timothy had the place and calling 
" of an Evangelist J^ Again ; " Seeing that Timothy was ordained 
" by the authority of the eldership, how could he be ai)ishop strict- 
"lyand precisely taken, being ordained by presbyters f p. 273. 
Dr. Willet also formally gives up the claim that diocesan bishops 

* It will be observed, that this zealous Episcopalian not only rejects 
the argument in favour of prelacy, drawn from the model of the Jewish 
Priesthoody but also declares it to be a popish argument, and of no value 
excepting on popish principles. 



164 LETTER VIL 

are peculiarly the successors of the apostles j explicitly conceding 
that all who preach the gospel, and administer sacraments, are 
equally entitled to this honour. And,, to place his opinion beyond 
all doubt, he observes, " Ahhough it cannot be denied but that the 
" government of bishops is very profitable for the preserving of 
" unity ; yet we dare not condemn the churches of Geneva, 
" Helvetia, Germany, Scotland, that have received another form 
" of ecclesiastical government; as the papists proudly affirm all 
" churches which have not such bishops as theirs are, to be no 
" true churches. But so do not our bishops and archbishops, 
" which is a notable difference between the bishops of the popish 
" church, and of the reformed churches. AVherefore, as we co?i- 
" dem?i not those reformed churches which have retained another 
" form of ecclesiastical government ; so neither are they to censure 
" our church for holding still the ancient regimen of bishops, 
" purged from the ambitious and superstitious inventions of the 
" popish prelacy." p. 276. 

Bishop ^27sow, in his work against Seminaries, lib. I. p. 318, 
delivers it as his opinion, and confirms it by quotations from Jerome, 
that " the church was at first governed by the common council of 
" presbyters ; that therefore bishops must understand that they are 
" greater than presbyters, rather by custom than the Lord^s appoint- 
" ment ; and that bishops came in after the Apostle's time." 

Dr. Holland, the King's professor of divinity in the University 
of Oxford^ at a public academical exercise, in the year l608, in 
answer to a question formally and solemnly proposed — An episco- 
patus sit ordo distinctus apreshyteratu, eoque superiorjure divino? 
i. e. Whether the ojice of bishop be different from that of pres- 
byter, and superior to it, by divine right, declared that " to affirm 
** that there is such a difference and superiority, by divine right? 
" is most false, contrary to Scripture, to the fathers, to the doctrine 
" of the church o{ England, yea to the very schoolmen themselves." 
Bishop Morton,'\n his Catholic Apology, addressed to the papists, 
lib. I. tells them " that the powers o( order and jurisdiction, which 
" they ascribe to bishops, doth by divine right belong to all other 
" presbyters ; and that to ordain is their ancient right." He further 
asserts, that Jerome does not represent the difference between bishop 
and presbyter as of divine institution. He assents to the opinion of 
Medina the Jesuit, and declares that there was no substantial 



CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 165 

difference on the subject of episcopacy between Jerome and Aerius. 
He avers, further, that not only all the protestants, but also all the 
primitive doctors were of Jeromeh mind. And, finally, he con- 
cludes, that according to the harmonious consent of all men in the 
apostolic age, there was no difference between bishop and presbyter ; 
but that this difference was afterwards introduced for the removal 
of schism. 

Bishop Jeioelj one of the most illustrious advocates for diocesan 

episcopacy, ii)|the Defence of his Apology for the Church of England 

against Harding , p. 248, has the following remarkable passage. 

" But what meant M. Harding to come in herewith the difference 

^^ between priests and bishops ? Thinketh he that priests and 

<< bishops hold only by tradition ? Or is it so horrible an heresy as 

*' he raaketh it, to say, that by the Scriptures of God, a bishop and 

" a priest are all one ? Or knoweth he how far, and to whom he 

" reacheth- the name of an heretic ? Verily Chrysostom sailh, 

" Inter episcopum, el preshyterum inter est fere nihil, i. e. ' between 

" a bishop and a priest there is, in a manner, no difference.' St. 

*' Jerome saith, somewhat in rougher sort. Audio, quendam in 

** tantam eripuisse vecordiam, ut diaconos presbyteris, id est, epis' 

'* copis ante ferret : cum Apostolus perspicue doceat, eosdem esse 

" presbyteros quos episcopos. i. e. ^ I hear say, there is one become 

" so peevish, that he setteth deacons before priests, that is to say, 

" bishops ; whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us, that priests 

" and bishops be all one.' St. Augustine also saith. Quid est 

" episcopus nisi primus presbyter, hoc est summus sacerdos ? i. e. 

" * What is a bishop, but the first priest, that is to say, the highest 

" priest ?' So sailh St. Ambrose, episcopi et presbyteri una ordina- 

" iio est ; uterque, enim, sacerdos est, sed episcopus primus est. 

" i. e. There is but one consecration of priest and bishop ; for both 

" of them are priests, but the bishop is the first. All these, and 

" other more holy fathers, together with St. Paul, the Apostle, 

<* for thus saying, by M. Harding^s advice, must be holden for 

" heretics,"* 

* it ought to be kept in mind, that Bishop Jewel's Apology for the 
Church of England \v9is laid before the public on the avowed principle, 
that it contained the doctrine of that church : and that the work from which 
the above quotation is made, was ordered to be suspended by a chain, in 
all the churches in the kingdom, and to be publicly read as a standard 
of theological instruction. Slrype's Annals, II. 100. 



166 LETTER VII. 

Dr. Whitaker, a learned divine of the church of England^ and 
professor of divinity in the University of Cambridge, in his treatise 
against Campion, the Jesuit, affirms, that bishop and presbyter are, 
by divine right, all one. And, in answer to Dury, a zealous hier- 
archist of Scotland, he tells him " that, whereas he asserts, with 
" many words, that bishop and presbyter are divers, if he will 
" retain the character of a modest divine, he must not so confident- 
" ly affirm, that which all men see to be so evidently false. For 
" what is so well known, says he, as this which you acknowledge 
" not ? Jerome plainly writeth that elders and bishops are the 
" same, and confirmeth it by many places of Scripture." The 
same celebrated Episcopalian, in writing against Bellarmine, says, 
" From 2 Tim. i. 6, we understand that Timothy had hands laid 
" on him by presbyters, who, at that time governed the church 
" in common council ;" and then proceeds to speak severely of 
Bellarmine and the Romish church for confining the power of ordi- 
nation to bishops exclusively of presbyters. 

The authority of few men stands higher among the friends of 
prelacy, than that of Bishop Hall, who wrote, and otherwise exert- 
ed himself, in favour of the divine right of diocesan episcopacy, 
with as much zeal and ability as any man of his day. Yet this 
eminently learned and pious divine, acknowledged the reformed 
church of Holland, where there never have been any diocesan 
bishops, to be a true church of Christ ; accepted of a seat in the 
Synod of Dort, in which the articles of faith, and form of govern- 
ment of that church were settled ; recognised the deputies from all 
the reformed churches on the continent, none of whom had received 
episcopal ordination, as regular ministers of Christ 5 and, when he 
took leave of the Synod, declared that ^' there was no place upon 
" earth so like Heaven as the Synod of Dort, and where he should 
"be more willing to dwell." BrandVs Hist. Sess. 62. The 
following extract of a sermon which he delivered in Latin before 
that venerable Synod, contains a direct and unequivocal acknow- 
ledgment of the church of Holland as a true church of Christ. It 
was delivered Nov. 29, I6I8 5 and founded on Eccles. vii. I6. 
" His serene majesty, our King James, in his excellent letter, 
" admonishes the Stales General, and in his instructions to us hath 
" expressly commanded us, to urge this with our whole might, to 
" inculcate this one thing, that you all continue to adhere to the 



CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 167 

" common faith, and the confession of your own and the other 
" churches : which if you do, O happy Holland ! O chaste 
" Spouse of Christ ! O prosperous Republic ! this your aflSicted 
" Church tossed with the billows of differing opinions, will 
" yet reach the harbour, and safely smile at all the storms excited 
" by her cruel adversaries. That this may at length be obtained, 
" let us seek for the things which make for peace. We are 
" brethren ; let us also be Colleagues ! What have we to do with 
" the infamous titles of party names ? We are Christians ; let us 
" also be of the same mind. We are one hody ; let us also be 
" unanimous. By the tremendous name of the omnipotent God ; 
" by the pious and loving bosom of our common Mother; by your 
" own souls ; by the holy bowels of Jesus Christ our Saviour, my 
"brethren, seek peace; pursue peace." See the whole in the 
" Ada Synodi Nat, Dord. 38. But this excellent prelate went 
further. A little more than twenty years after his mission to 
Holland, and when he had been advanced to the bishoprick of 
Norwich^ he published his Irenicum (or Peacemaker), in which we 
find the following passage, Sect, YI. " Blessed be God, there is no 
" difference, in any essential point, between the church of England, 
'^ and her sister reformed churches. We unite in every article of 
" christian doctrine, without the least variation, as the full and 
" absolute agreement between their public confessions and ours 
" testifies.* The only difference between us consists in our mode 
" of constituting the external ministry ; and even with respect to 
" this point we are of one mind, because we all profess to believe 
" that it Is not an essential oi ih^ church, (though in the opinion of 
" many it is a matter of importance to her well being ;) and we all 
" retain a respectful and friendly opinion of each other, not seeing 
" any reason why so small a disagreement should produce any 
" alfenation of affection among us." And after proposing some 
common principles on which they might draw more closely 
together, he adds, " But if a difference of opinion with regard to 

* It has long been maintained by well informed persons, that the 
fathers, or the most distinguished reformers of the church of England\ 
were doctrinal Calvinisis ; and that the thirty -nine Articles of that church 
drawn up by them are Calvinistic. If there were any remaining doubt 
with respect to the accuracy of this representation, the opinion of Bishop 
HaU, here so strongly expressed, would be decisive in its support. 



168 LETTER Vll. 

" these points of external order must continue, why may we not be 
" of one heart and of one mind? or why should this disagreement 
** break the bonds of good brotherhood ?" How different the lan- 
guage and the spirit of some modern advocates for the divine right 
of diocesan episcopacy ! 

The same practical concession was made by the eminently learn- 
ed and pious Bishop Davenant, while professor of divinity in the 
university of Cambridge. He accepted of a seat in the synod of 
Dort, and gave the sanction of his presence and aid in organizing 
the Presbyterian church of Holland. We are informed, indeed, 
that Bishop Carleton, and the other English delegates, expressed 
their opinions very fully in the synod, in favour of the Episcopal 
form of government: but their sitting in that body and assisting in 
its deliberations ; their preaching in the pulpits of the Presbyterian 
ministers of Doj't, and attending on all the public religious services 
of the synod, were among the strongest acknowledgments they 
could make, that they considered the ministrations of non-episcopal 
ministers as valid. But Bishop Davenant went further. After 
his advancement to the bishoprick of Salisbury, he published a 
work, in which he urged with much earnestness and force, a 
fraternal union among all the reformed churches.* A plan which, 
it is obvious, involved in it an explicit acknowledgment that the 
foreign reformed churches, most of which were Presbyterian, 
were true churches of Christ ; and which, indeed, contained in its 
very title, a declaration that those churches " did not differ from 
*Uhe church of England in any fundamental article of Christian 
" faith." 

Bishop Croft's concessions on this subject are equally candid 
and decisive. I had occasion in a former letter to take notice of 
an acknowledgment of the most pointed sort in his work, entitled 
Naked Truth, a work written and published while the author was 
bishop of Hereford, and powerfully defended by some of the most 
learned men of his day. The following additional passages from 
the same work deserve our notice. "The scripture no where 
'* expresses any distinction of order among the elders. We find 

* M Fraiernam, Communionem inter Evangelicas Ecdesias restauran- 
dam Mhortatio; in eofundatay Quod non dissentiant in ullo Fundamentali 
Catholicss Mdei jiriiculo. Cantab. 1640. 



CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 169 

" there but two orders mentioned, bishops and deacons. The 
" scripture distinguisheth not the order of bishops and priests ; for 
" there we find but one kind of ordination, then certainly but one 
"order; for two distinct orders cannot be conferred in the same 
" instant, by the same words, by the same actions." With respect 
to the office of deacon, this bishop entirely coincides with scripture 
and the Presbyterian church. In the work above mentioned, (p. 
49.) he remarks that he will not dispute, " Whether this of dea- 
" conship be properly to be called an order or an ojjice, biit 
" certainly no spiritual order 5 for their office was to serve tables, 
" as the Scripture phrases it, which in plain English, is nothing else 
" but overseers of the poor ^ to distribute justly and discreetly the 
"alms of the faithful, which the apostles would not trouble them- 
" selves withal, lest it should hinder them in the ministration of the 
" word and prayer. But as most matters of this world, in process 
" time, deflect much from the original constitution, so it fell out in 
" this business ; for the bishops who pretended to be successors to 
" the apostles, by little and little, took to themselves the dispensa- 
" tion of alms, first by way of inspection over the deacons, but at 
" length the total management : and the deacons, who were mere 
"lay-officers, by degrees crept into the church ministration, and 
" became a reputed spiritual order, and a necessary degree and 
" step to the priesthood, of which I can find nothing in scripture, 
" and the original institution, nor a word relating to any thing but 
" the ordering of alms for the poor." 

Lord George Digby, an eminent English nobleman, who flour- 
ished in the reigns of Charles I. and Charles II. and who wrote 
largely on the questions which agitated the church in his day, in a 
letter to Sir Kenelnie Digbi/j on the subject before us, expresses 
himself in the following terms: — "He that would reduce the 
" church now, to the form of government in the most primitive 
" times, would not take, in my opinion, the best nor wisest course; 
" I am sure not the safest : for he would be found pecking towards 
" the presbytery of Scotland, which, for my part, I believe, in 
" point of government, hath a greater resemblance than either 
"yours or ours, to the Jirst age, and yet it is never a whit the 
" better for it ; since it was a form not chosen for the best, but 
" imposed by adversity under oppression, which, in the beginning, 
" forced the church from what it wished, to what it might ; not 
Y 



170 LETTER VII. 

"suffering that dignity and state ecclesiastical which rightly 
*' belonged unto it, to manifest itself to the world: — and which, 
" soon afterwards, upon the least lucid intervals, shone forth so 
" gloriously in the happier as well as more monarchical condition 
" of Episcopacy : of which way of government I am so well per- 
" suaded that I think it pity it was not made betimes an article of 
" the Scottish CatecJiism, that bishops are of divine right."* 

The character of Archbishop Usher stands high with Episco- 
palians. He was one of the greatest and best of men. His plan 
for the reduction of Episcopacy into the form of Synodical 
government, received in the Ancient Church, is well known to 
every one who is tolerably versed in the ecclesiastical history of 
England. The essential principle of that plan is, that bishop and 
presbyter, were originally the same order ; and that in the primi- 
'tive church, the bishop was only a standing president or moderator 
among his fellow presbyters. To guard against the possibility of 
mistake, the illustrious prelate declared he meant to restore 
" that kind of Presbyterian government, which, in the church of 
" England, had long been disusedJ' The archbishop, further, 
" being asked by Charles I. in the Isle of Wight, whether he found 
" in antiquity that presbyters alone ordained any V* answered, 
" Yes, and that he could show his Majesty more, even where 
^^ presbyters alone successively ordained bishops, and brought 
" as an instance of this, the pveshyters of Alexandria choosing and 
" making their own bishops, from the days of Mark, till Heraclas 
" and DionysiusP The following declaration of the same learned 
dignitary, is also full to our purpose. It having been reported of 
him, that he had expressed an uncharitable opinion concerning the 
church of Holland, as no true church, because she was without 
diocesan bishops, when they were within her reach, if she had 
chosen to accept them, he thus repels the calumny : " I have ever 
" declared my opinion to be, that bishop and presbyter differ only 
" in degree, and not in order ; and consequently, that in places 
" where bishops cannot be had, the ordination by presbyters 
" standeth valid. Yet, on the other side, holding, as I do, that a 
" bishop hath superiority in degree over a presbyter, you may 
" easily judge, that the ordination made by such presbyters, as 

• Jus Divinum Minis. Evang. II. p. 107. 



CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 171 

" have severed themselves from those bishops unto whom they had 
" sworn canonical obedience^ cannot possibly by me be excused 
" from being schismatical. And howsoever, I must needs think, 
" that the churches which have no bishops, are thereby become 
"very much defective in their government, and that the churches 
" in France, who, living under a popish power, cannot do what 
" they would, are more excusable in this defect, than the Low 
" Countries, who live under a free state ; yet, for the testifying of 
" my communion with these churches, (which 1 do love and honour 
" as true members of the church universal,) I do profess, that with 
" like affection I should receive the blessed sacrament at the hands 
" of the Dutch ministers, if I were in Holland, as I should do at 
" the hands of the French ministers, if I were in Charenton.^'* 
Bishop Forbes, a zealous Episcopalian, in his Irenicum, Lib. 
"II. cap. xi. Prop. 13. expresses himself thus: "Presbyters 
" have, by divine right, the power of ordaining, as well as of 
" preaching and baptizing. They ought, indeed, to exercise this 
" function under the inspection and government of a bishop, in 
" places where there are bishops. But in other places, where the 
"government of the church is administered by the common coun- 
" sel of presbyters alone, that ordination is valid and effectual 
" which is performed by the imposition of the hands of presbyters 
" alone." In confirmation of this doctrine. Bishop Forbes quotes 
two passages from the fathers. The first is from Hilary, 
{^Ambrose ^ who, he says, tells us, in his commentary on the Ephe- 
sians, that in Egypt, presbyters ordain if a bishop be not present ; 
which passage in Hilary he interprets precisely as I have done, in 
a preceding letter. The second is from Augustine, who, he informs 
us, declares, that in Alexandria, and through the whole of Egypt, 
ifa bishop be not present, presbyters ordain. Again, he says: 
" From all these things, it is manifest, that, in the ancient church, 
" it was lawful for presbyters alooe, if bishops were not present, to 
" ordain presbyters and deacons ; and such ordinations were held 
" to be valid, although it was "prudently appointed, for the preser- 
" vation of discipline, that this should not be done without the 
" consent of a bishop. That is to say, in those places in which 
" there were bishops, it was held to be criminal to despise their 

• Seethejudgmentofthe late Archbishop of jirmaghy 110—123 



172 LETTER VII. 

<* authority. But in those places in which presbyters only governed 
" the church, it was sufficient to stamp validity upon an ordination 
" that it be performed under the authority of an assembly, or bench 
" of presbyters." 

The concessions of Dr. Stilling jleetj (afterwards bishop of 
Worcester^ on this subject are well known. The avowed object 
of his Irenicum, one of the most learned works of the age in which 
it appeared, was to show, that no form of church government is 
prescribed in the word of God ; that the church is at liberty to 
modify the details of her external order, both with respect to 
officers and functions, as well as discipline, at pleasure ; and of 
course, that ordinations and government by presbyters are equally 
valid with those administered by diocesan bishops. He seems to 
acknowledge, indeed, that Presbyterian parity, is on the whole, 
more agreeable to scripture, and to the practice of the primitive 
church, than prelacy ; but, at the same time, denies that this ought 
to be considered as establishing the divine right of presbytery. In 
the course of this work, the learned author exhibits a mass of evi- 
dence from scripture and primitive antiquity against the episcopal 
claims, and quotes declarations made by some of the most 
distinguished divines of different ages and denominations, which 
will doubtless be read with surprise by those who have been 
accustomed to believe that the whole Christian world, with very 
little exception, has always been episcopal. 

To destroy the force of Dr. StillingjleeVs concessions, it is urged, 
that he afterwards became dissatisfied with this work, and retracted 
the leading opinion which it maintains.* To this suggestion I will 

* The Irenicum has been stig-matized by some hig-h-toned Episcopalians, 
as an hasty, indig-ested work, written at an early period of the author's 
life, and soon repented of. The following facts will show how far this 
representation is correct. After having been several years engaged in 
the composition of this work, the author published it in 1659, at the age 
of twenty-four. Three years afterwards, viz. in 1662, he pubhshed a 
second edition ; and the same year, he gave to the world his Origines Sa- 
crx. Soon after these publications, he met his diocesan, the celebrated 
Bishop Saunderson, at a visitation. The bishop seeing so young a man, 
could hardly believe it was StilUngJleet, whom he had hitherto known 
only by his writings; and, after having embraced him, said, he much 
rather expected to have seen one as considerable for his age as he had already 



CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 173 

reply, by a quotation from Bishop White of Fennsylvania, who 
in a pamphlet published a few years since, having occasion to 
adduce the Irenicum as an authority against high church notions, 
speaks of the performance and its author in the following terras : 
" As that learned prelate was afterwards dissatisfied whh his work, 
*• (though most probably not with that part of it which would have 
" been to our purpose,) it might seem uncandid to cite the author- 
" ity of his opinion. Bishop Burnet, his cotemporary and friend, 
" says, {History of Ids own Times, anno I66I,) To avoid the 
" imputation that book brought on him, he went into the humours 
" of an high sort of people, beyond what became him, perhaps 
" beyond his own sense of things." " The book, however,'' Bishop 
White adds, " was, it seems, easier retracted than refuted j for 
" though offensive to many of both parties, it was managed, (says 
" the same author,) with so much learning and skill, that none of 
" either side ever undertook to answer it." 

The truth seems to be, that Dr. Stillingfleet, finding that the 
opinions of a number of influential men in the church were differ- 
ent from those which he had advanced in this work ; and finding 
also that a fixed adherence to them might be adverse to the inte- 
rests of the established church, in which he sought preferment, he 
made a kind of vague and feeble recantation ; and wrote in favour 
of the apostolic origin of Episcopacy. It is remarkable, however, 
that this prelate, in answer to an accusation of inconsistency 
between his early and his latter writings on this subject, assigned 
another reason besides a change of opinion, viz. that the former 
were written " before the laws were established,'* But in what- 
ever degree his opinion may have been altered, his reasonings and 
authorities have undergone no change. They remain in all their 
force, and have never been refuted, either by himself, or by others. 

shown himself for his learning. See the Life of Bishop Stillingfleet, p. 
12 — 16. When a divine of acknowledged talents and learning-, (whatever 
may be his age,) after spending several years in a composition of mode- 
rate length, deliberately commits it to the press; when, after reflecting 
on the subject, and hearing the remarks of his friends for tliree years lon- 
ger, he publishes it a second time; and when, after this second publica- 
tion, he is complimented for his great erudition, by one of the most able 
and learned dignitaries of the age, there seems little room for a charge 
of haste or want of digestion. 



174 LETTER VII. 

The concessions of Bishop Burnet on this subject, are numerous 
and unequivocal. Several have been already mentioned. Out of 
many more which might be presented, I select the following decla- 
ration : "I acknowledge bisJiop and presbyter to he one and the 
" same offlcey and so plead for no new office-bearer in the church* 
" The first branch of their power is their authority to publish the 
" Gospel, to manage the worship, and dispense the sacraments ; and 
" this is all that is of divine right in the ministry, in which bishops 
" And presbyters are equal sharers. But besides this, the church 
" claimeth a power of jurisdiction, of making rules for discipline^ 
" and applying and executing the same ; all which is, indeed, 
" suitable to the common laws of society, and the general rules of 
" Scripture, but hath no positive warrant from any Scripture pre- 
" cept. And all these constitutions of churches into Synods, and 
" the canons of discipline taking their rise from the divisions of the 
" world into several provinces, and beginning in the second, and 
" beginning of the third century, do clearly show, that they can be 
" derived from no divine original, and so were, as to their particular 
" form, but of human institution."* 

The opinions held by Archbishop Tillotson, on this subject, 
substantially agree with those of Bishop Burnet ^ or, if they differ 
from them, are even more favourable to Presbyterian church gov- 
ernment. He was decidedly in favour of admitting the dissenting 
clergy into the church of England, without re-ordaining them ; and 
did not scruple to avow that he considered their ordination as 
equally valid with that which was received from episcopal bishops. 
And, in conformity with this opinion, he advised the episcopal 
clergy of Scotland to unite with the Presbyterian church in that 
country, and submit to its government.! 

Archbishop Wake, who was a warm friend to prelacy, and 
whose character stands high with its advocates, it is well known 
kept up a constant friendly correspondence with the most eminent 
pastors and professors in Geneva and Holland; manifested a 
fraternal regard to them ; declared their churches, notwithstand- 

* Vindication of the church and state of Scotland, p. 331. 

-j- See Remarks upon the Life of the most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson, 
8vo. 17'54 5 in which the author, a most violent Episcopalian, acknow- 
ledges these facts, and loads him with much abuse on account of them. 



CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 175 

ing their difference in discipline and government from his own, to 
be true churches of Christ ; and expressed a warm desire for their 
union with the church of England, at the head of which he was 
then placed. In a letter which he wrote to the celebrated Le 
Clerc, of the Genevan school, then residing in Holland, in the year 
1719, there is the following passage. "I freely embrace the 
" reformed churches, notwithstanding they differ in some respects 
" from that of England. I could wish, indeed, they had retained 
" that moderate episcopacy, freed from all unjust domination, which 
" obtains among us, and which, if I have any skill in judging on this 
" subject, was received in the church, from the apostolic age. 
" Nor do I despair of its being restored. If I should not see it 
" myself, posterity will. In the mean time, I am so far from being 
" so uncharitable as to believe that any of those churches, on 
" account of this defect, (for so I must be allowed, without invi- 
" diousness, to call it) ought to be cut off from our communion ; 
" nor can J, 6y any means, join with certain mad writers among 
" MS, in denying the validity of their sacraments, and in calling 
" in question their right to the name of Christian churches.* I 
" could wish to bring about, at any price, a more close union 
" between all the reformed churches." The same prelate, in a 
letter to Professor Turretin,oi Geneva, in 1718, speaking of 
Bishop DavenanVs conciliatory opinions, declares that they per- 
fectly coincide with his own, and that he could earnestly wish thai 
all Christians were of the same mind. Another letter, of a more 
public nature, which he afterwards addressed to the pastors and 
professors of Geneva, abounds with similar sentiments, and ex- 
presses the most fraternal affection for those Presbyterian worthies.! 
Nor were these letters written by him merely as a private man, or 
in the spirit of temporizing politeness ; but manifestly with all the 

• The language employed by the good archbishop to express his 
disapprobation of this doctrine is remarkably strong and pointed. He 
calls those writers who attempt to maintain it, furiosi j i. e. madmen. If 
he spoke in this style of such writers in England^ where diocesan 
episcopacy was established by law, and when he was himself at the 
head of that establishment; what would he have said concerning 
writers of a similar stamp, at the present day in America^ where all 
denominations, with respect to the state, stand on a level ? 

f See Appendix HI. to Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. 



176 LETTER VII. 

deliberation and solemnity of a man who felt his official respon- 
sibility. 

The learned Joseph Bingham^ who has written largely and ably 
in defence of the episcopacy of the church of England, frankly 
acknowledges, that " that church does by no means damn or cut 
" off from her communion, those who believe bishops and presby- 
" ters to be the same order. Some of our best episcopal divines, 
" and true sons of the church of England, have said the same, 
" distinguishing between order and jurisdiction, and made use of 
" this doctrine and distinction to justify the ordinations of the 
" reformed churches, against the Romanists."* French Churches 
Apol p. 262. 

Dr. John Edwards, a learned and respectable divine of the 
church of England, in a treatise on this subject, after having con- 
sidered the testimonies of Clement, Ignatius, Cyprian, Chrysos- 
tom, Theodoret, Jerome, and others, makes the following declara- 
tion. " From all these we may gather that the scripture 6«sAop 
" was the chief of the presbyters / but he was not of a distinct 
" order from them. And as for the times after the apostles, none 
" of these writers, nor any ecclesiastical historian, tells us, that a 
" person of an order superior to presbyters was set over the 
" presbyters. It is true one single person is recorded to have 
" presided over the college of presbyters, but this college had the 
" the same power with the single person, though not the particular 
" dignity of presidentship. The short is, the bishops in these 
" times were presbyters ; only he that presided over the body of 
"presbyters was called bishop, while the rest were generally 
" known by the title o^ presbyters ', and the bishop was still but a 
" presbyter, as to order and function, though, for distinction sake, 
" he was known by the name of bishop. He was superior to the 
" other presbyters as long as he executed his office, as a chairman 
" in a committee is above the rest of the justices whilst he holds that 
" place. It was generally the most ancient presbyter that was 
" chosen to preside over the college of presbyters, but he had no 
" superiority of power. All the priority or primacy he had was 

* It will be distinctly remembered, that all the reformed Churches, 
excepting- that of England, admitted and practised ordination by 
presbyters. 



CONCESSIONIS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 177 

" that of order. Here is the ancient pattern. Why is it not 
*' followed ?* To single fathers, we raay add councils, who deliver 
" the same sense. This, then, is the true account of the matter. 
" Bishops were elders or presbyters, and therefore of the same 
" order ; but the bishops differed from the presbyters in this only, 
" that they were chosen by the elders to preside over tb^m at 
" their ecclesiastical meetings or assemblies.! But in after ages, 
" the presbyters of some churches parted with their liberty and 
" right, and agreed among themselves that ecclesiastical matters 
" should be managed by the bishop only." Edwards' Remains^ 
p. 253. 

Sir Peter King, lord chancellor of Englamd, about the begin- 
ning of the eighteenth century, published a very learned work, 
entitled. An Inquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and 
Worship, of the Primitive Church, that flourished within the first 
300 years after Christ. In this work his lordship undertakes to 
show, " that ?i presbyter, in the primitive church, meant a person 
" in holy o\'devs,having thereby an inherent right to perform the 
" whole ojice of a bishop, and differing from a bishop in nothing, 
" but in having no parish, or pastoral charge." He further shows, 
" that presbyters, in those times of primitive purity, were called by 
*^ the same titles, and were of the same specific order with bishops ; 
*^ that they ruled in those churches to which they belonged ; that 
" they presided in church consistories with the bishop ', that they 
" had the power of excommunication, and of restoring penitents 5 
" that they confirmed; and that there are clearer proofs of pres- 
**' byters ordaining, than of their administering the Lot^d^s Supper,'' 
The same learned author maintains that there were but two orders 
of church officers, instituted by the authority of Christ, viz. bishops 
VLnd deacons: " and if they ordained but two," adds he, " I think 
" no one had ever a commission to add a third, or to split one into 

* Here is an explicit acknowledgment, that the episcopacy of the 
Church of England, and primitive episcopacy^ are very different things. 

t The primitive bishop, in Dr. ^c?ii;ar^5' judgment, therefore, corres- 
ponds exactly with the moderaior or president, of our presbyteries^ who 
is a standing officer, elected at stated periods, who always presides at 
the meetings of the body to which he belongs, and until a successor is 
chosen. 

z 



178 LETTER VIL 

" two, as must be done, if we separate the order of presbyters from 
" the order of bishops." 

Dr. Haweis, an eminent clergyman of the Church o( England ^ 
now living, in the Introduction to his Ecclesiastical History, 
makes the following decided avowal. ^' Having, through divine 
" mercy, obtained grace to be faithful — having in Providence 
" received my education, and been called to minister in the church 
" of England, I have embraced and subscribed her articles, ex an- 
" into, and have continued to prefer an episcopal mode of govern- 
" ment. But disclaiming all exc/wszt-e pretensions, and joined to 
" the Lord in one spirit, with all the faithful of every denomination, 
" I candidly avow my conviction, that the true church is catholic, 
" or universal ; not monopolized by any one body of professing 
" christians, but essentially a spiritual church ; and consisting only 
" and equally of those who, in every denomination, love our Lord 
" Jesus Christ in sincerity. Respecting the administration of 
" this church, I am not convinced that the Lord of life and glory 
" left any precise regulations. His kingdom could ahke subsist 
" under any species of government ; and having nothing to do 
" with this world, v/as, in externals, to be regulated by existing 
" circumstances. Whether Episcopacy, Presbytery, or the con- 
" gregational order, be established as the dominant profession, it 
" afifects not the body of Christ. The living members, under each 
" of these modes of administration, are alike bound to love one 
" another out of a pure heart fervently ; to indulge their brethren 
" in the same liberty of private judgment which they exercise 
" themselves ; and ought never to suffer these regulations of out- 
" ward order to destroy the unity of the spirit, or to break the 
" bonds of peace." 

The Rev. Mr. Gisborne, a distinguished and popular writer, of 
the Church of England, also now living, avows opinions nearly 
similar to those contained in the preceding quotation. In his Sur- 
vey of the Christian Religion, (chapter xii.) he has the following 
passage. " If Christ, or his apostles, enjoined the uniform adop- 
" tion of episcopacy, the question is decided. Did Christ then, or 
" hifi disciples, deliver, or indirectly convey, such an injunction? 
" This topic has been greatly controverted. The fact appears to 
" be this: that the Saviour did not pronounce upon the subject ; 
" that the apostles uniformly established a bishop in every district, 



CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 179 

" as soon as the Church in that district became numerous ; and thus 
"clearly evinced their judgment, as to the form of ecclesiastical 
" government most advantageous, at least in tJwse daijs, to christi- 
" anity; but that they left no command which rendered episcopacy 
"universally indispensable in future times, if other forms should 
" evidently promise, through local opinions and circumstances 
" greater benefit to religion. Such is the general sentiment 

" OP THE present ChURCH OP ENGLAND ON THE SUBJECT." 

An eminent layman of the church of England, in a work lately 
published, in the coyrse of some excellent advices for promoting 
the prosperity of that church, expressly reprobates the exclusive 
claims for which some zealous hierarchists contend, and pro- 
nounces them most mischievous in their operation on the interests 
of religion. Among many pertinent and judicious remarks on this 
subject, he makes the following. " A general presumption lies 
" against all extraordinary claims ; and on this account, the oppo- 
" sition which is commonly made to them, (though previous to 
" examination) is not absolutely unreasonable. They are marks 
" by which the weakest persons, as well as the weakest causes, are 
" particularly distinguished. In this kind of competition, the em- 
" piric, the pedant, and the sophist, will far outstrip the skilful 
" physician, the able scholar, and the profound philosopher. The 
" same observation is applicable to bodies of men, ecclesiastical 
" as well as civil. Hence the high claims of the Romish church 
" afford the prolestants one of their most legitimate presumptions 
" against her. From her claim of right to an absolute dictatorial 
" authority, we presume the contrary ; from her claim to apostolic 
^'purity in her faith, worship, government, and discipline, we 
" presume upon her corruption in each. From her denial of sal- 
" vation to those that are without her pale, we presume it to be 
" peculiarly hazardous to be found within it. Thus by her ambi- 
" tious or fanatical endeavours to exalt herself above other churches, 
" she supplies them, and her adversaries in general, with a forcible 
" plea against herself." Again : " Suppose a church to give a 
" decided preference to episcopal government, not considering it 
" as absolutely essential to her being, but as conducive to her well- 
" being; not as indispensably necessary, but expedient ; and this 
" chiefly in respect to her own edification, without any positive 
" determination as to other churches ; it is almost impossible that 



180 LETTER VTI. 

" a preference thus qualified should occasion any contest or ani- 
" mosity. But if she assert such a government to be of indispen- 
" sable divine right, and set up a claim which nullifies the sacra- 
" ments and administrations of other churches, she must expect to 
" encounter the most violent opposition. On the other hand, should 
" a church, on account of the parity of her ministers, exalt herself 
" above other churches, and look down on the episcopal order, in 
" its most primitive state, as something popish and antichristian ; 
" she can hardly fail, by such an extravagance, to diminish her 
" credit with all impartial by-standers.'^* ^ • 

The opinions and the declarations of Dr. White, the present 
bishop of the episcopal churches mFennsylvania, will have weight 
with all Episcopalians. In a pamphlet published by him, a itw 
years ago, entitled, The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the 
United States considered, the principal object of which was to 
recommend a temporary departure from the line of episcopal 
succession, on the ground that bishops could not then be had, we 
find the following passage, p. 28. *^ Now if even those who hold 
" episcopacy to be of divine right, conceive the obligation to it not 
" to be binding when that idea would be destructive of public 
" worship ; much more must they think so, who indeed venerate 
" and prefer that form as the most ancient and eligible, hut without 
" any idea of divine right in the case. This the author believes 
" to be the sentiment of the great body of Episcopalians in Ame- 
" rica ; in which respect they have in their favour, ww^Mesiionaft/y, 
" the sense of the church of England ; and, as he believes, the 
" opinions of her most distinguished prelates for piety, virtue, and 
« abilities."* 

Another instance of concession from an eminent Episcopalian, 
is that of the present Bishop of Lincoln, who, in his Elements of 
Christian Theology, a work of great authority and popularity in 
the church of England at this time, expresses himself in the follow- 
ing terms. " Though I flatter myself that I have proved episco- 

* Christian Politics, by Ely Bates, Esq, Part II. Sect. 5. Second edition, 
1806. 

* It will be observed, that I am not alone in supposing that the great 
body of the church of England, both clergy and laity, reject the divine 
right of prelacy. A bishop of the highest reputation in the episcopal 
church ill the United States, has pronounced that this is unquestionably so 



CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 181 

" pacy to be an apostolical institution ; yet I readily acknowledge, 
" that there is no precept in the New Testament, which com- 
" mands that every church should be governed by bishops. No 
*^ church can exist without some government. But tjiough there 
" must be rules and orders for the proper discharge of the offices of 
" public worship ; though there must be fixed regulations con- 
" cerning the appointment of ministers; and though a subordination 
" among them is expedient y in the highest degree ; yet it does not 
" follow that all these things must be precisely the same in every 
" Christian country. They may vary with the other varying 
"circumstances of human society ; with the extent of a country, 
" the manners of its inhabitants, the nature of its civil government, 
" and many other peculiarities which might be specified. As it 
" hath not pleased our Almighty Father to prescribe any particular 
" form of civil government, for the security of temporal comforts 
" to his rational creatures ; so neither has he prescribed any 
" particular form of ecclesiastical polity, as absolutely necessary to 
" the attainment of eternal happiness. The scriptures do not 
" prescribe any particular form of church government." Vol. II. 
p. 383, &c. 

To the foregoing quotations, I shall only add, that a number of 
the most learned divines of the church of England^ when writing 
on other subjects, have indirectly made concessions quite as deci- 
sive as any that have been mentioned. Almost every divine of 
that church who has undertaken to explain the prophetic parts of 
the sacred writings, has represented the reformed Churches as 
" the Lord's sealed ones ;" as his " anointed ones ;" as the 
" witnesses against the man of sin ;" as the " saints of the most 
high ;" as having " the temple of God," and his " altar." Among 
many that might be named in confirmation of this remark, the 
ingenious and excellent Mr. Faher^ in a work published in the 
course of the last year, (1806,) and which has received the decided 
approbation of his diocesan, expressly applies to the German pro- 
testants, those prophecies which represent the purest part of the 
Christian church. He dates the death of the witnesses at the bat- 
tle of Mulburg, in April, 1547, and their resurrection at Magde 
hurgh, in the year 1550. He does not claim for the church of 
England even the first rank among the witnesses, and much less 
the exclusive title to that honour. 



183 LETTER VII. 

The foregoing quotations are only a small specimen of what 
might have been produced, if our limits admitted of their being 
further multiplied. Nothing would be more easy than to fill a 
volume wit||»<:oncessions of similar import ; concessions made, not 
by men of obscure name and small learning ; but by divines of the 
most exalted character, for talents, erudition, and piety_, that ever 
adorned the church of England ; divines who shared her highest 
dignities, and who gave the most unquestionable evidence of 
attachment to her constitution. Those which we have detailed, 
however, are abundantly sufficient. They prove that Presbyte- 
rians are not alone in considering the fathers as favourable to the 
doctrine of ministerial parity ; that the great body of the reformers, 
and other witnesses for the truth, in different ages and nations, 
were, in the opinion of enlightened Episcopalians, friends and 
advocates of the same doctrine 5 that the notion of the exclusive 
and unalterable divine right of diocesan episcopacy, has been not 
only rejected, but even reprobated, by some of the greatest divines 
of the church of England, in more indignant and severe language 
than I have permitted myself to use in the preceding pages ; and 
that the most competent judges have considered a large majority 
of the English clergy, at all periods since the reformation, as ad- 
vocates of the constitution of their national church, not on the 
principle of divine right, but of human expediency. 



( 183 ) 



LETTER VIII. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 



CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

When we have proved that the apostolic church existed with- 
out diocesan Bishops, we have done enough. No matter how 
soon after the death of the apostles, and the close of the sacred 
canon, such an order of ministers was introduced. Whether the 
introduction of this order were affected in four years, or four 
centuries after that period, it equally rests on human authority 
alone, and is to be treated as a mere contrivance and command- 
ment of men. We cannot too often repeat, nor too diligently 
keep in view, that the authority of Christ can be claimed for noth- 
ing which is not found, in some form, in his own word. 

But our episcopal brethren, forgetting this great principle of the 
reformation, when we acknowledge that prelacy existed in the 
fourth century y attempt to found on this fact an argument in favour 
of their cause. Their argument is this : " Bishops, as an order 
" superior to presbyters, are confessed to have existed in the fourth 
" century. Now in what manner shall we account for the intro- 
" (?wc<fow of such an order ? Can any man believe that it was an 
" innovation foisted in by human ambition within the first three 
" hundred years ? Is it supposable that men of so much piety, 
**' self-denial, and zeal, as the ministers of the primitive church are 
" generally represented to have been, would be disposed to usurp 
" an unscriptural authority ? Had they any temptation to do this, 
" when, by gaining ecclesiastical pre-eminence, they only became 
" more obnoxious to the fury of persecution ? But even supposing 
" them to have been so ambitious and unprincipled as to attempt 



184 LETTER VIII. 

" this encroachment on the rights of others, can we imagine that 
" such an attempt would have been successful ? Would the rest of 
" the clergy have quietly submitted to the usurpation ? Would the 
" people have endured it ? In a word, is it credible that so great a 
" change should have taken place in the constitution of the church, 
" without opposition, without noise, without leaving in the records 
" of antiquity some traces of the steps by which it was accom- 
" plished ? No 5 it is not credible. It is impossible. The infer- 
" ence then is, that no such alteration ever took place ; that bish- 
" ops, as an order superior to presbyters, have existed in the 
" Christian church from the beginning, and consequently are of 
" apostolical origin.'^ This is the substance of an argument, which 
the celebrated ChiUingworth ventures to style " demonstration,^^* 
and on which great stress has been laid by all succeeding episcopal 
writers. 

But to invalidate this reasoning, which scarcely deserves to be 
called specious, nothing more is necessary than a little attention to 
a few plain facts. From these facts it will appear, that, consider- 
ing the character and circumstances of the church, from the 
close of the second to the beginning of the fourth century, nothing 
was more likely to happen than such [an usurpation and change 
as are here supposed : That changes quite as inconsistent with 
primitive purity, and quite as likely to excite opposition and noise, 
are acknowledged on all hands, actually to have taken place during 
that period, without our being able to find in the records of anti- 
quity, any distinct account of the manner in which they were 
introduced : and that, notwithstanding every plausible theory to 
the contrary, there is abundant evidence that the precise change 
which our opponents pronounce impossible, did, in fact, gradually 
gain admittance into the church, after the close of the second 
century, and produced an important revolution in its aspect and 
government. 

The desire of pre-eminence and of power is natural to man. It 

* It is not meant to be asserted that ChiUingworth was the Jirst writer 
who stated and urged this argument. It is of popish origin, and, among 
others, was employed with gi'eat confidence by Bellarmine, against the 
protestants of his day jn support of prelacy, and several other corrup- 
tions of the church of Rome, See his work De Notis Eccksise. Lib. 4. 
cap. 5. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 185 

is one of the most early, powerful, and universal principles of our 
nature. It reigns without control in wicked men, and has more 
influence than it ought in the minds of the most pious. Accord- 
ingly, we find the criminal operation of this principle disclosing 
itself even under the eye of our Saviour himself. The sons of 
Zehedee, filled with ambition, came to their Lord with a formal 
request, that they might be promoted to places of distinguished 
rank in his kingdom. Mark x, 37. And even on that solemn 
night in which Christ was betrayed, when he had just dispensed 
to the twelve apostles the sacrament of the last supper, and had 
informed thera that the hour of his departure was at hand ; when 
they were still seated in his presence, and might be expected to 
be under the influence of all the devout and humble feelings which 
such a scene, and such a disclosure, were calculated to inspire, 
there was a strife among therriy which of them should he accounted 
the greatest. Luke xxii. 24. The same principle continued to 
manifest itself after the ascension of the Saviour. The apostles 
repeatedly caution the ministers of their day against a spirit of 
covetousness and ambition, and especially against lording it over 
God's heritage / plainly intimating, either that in the midst of all 
the persecution to which the church was exposed, they perceived 
such a criminal disposition arising ; or that they foresaw that it 
was likely to arise. The Apostle Paw? more than once represents 
himself as called to struggle with the ambitious pretensions of 
Christian ministers, who sought unduly to exalt themselves : and 
the apostle John informs us, that a certain Diotrephes, who loved 
to have the pre-eminence in the church, violently opposed the 
apostolic ministry, because he considered it as unfavourable to his 
plans of selfishness and domination. If such a disposition were 
exhibited while the apostles were still alive ; while the gifts of 
inspiration and miracles were still enjoyed by the churchy and 
while the precepts and example of the Saviour were so fresh in 
the memory of his people, what might not have been expected to 
appear in three centuries afterwards, when the slate of the church 
exhibited, in almost every respect, a lamentable degeneracy ? 

We are accustomed to look back to the first ages of the church 

with a veneration nearly bordering on superstition. It answered 

the purposes of popery, to refer all their corruptions to primitive 

times, and to represent those times as exhibiting the models of all 

2 A 



186 LETTER VIII. 

excellence. But every representaton of this kind must be received 
with distrust. The christian church, during the apostolic age, and 
for half a century afterwards, did indeed present a venerable aspect. 
Persecuted by the world, on every side, she was favoured in an 
uncommon measure with the presence and spirit of her divine Head, 
and exhibited a degree ofsimplicity and purity, which has, perhaps, 
never since been equalled. But before the close of the second cen- 
tury, the scene began to change ; and before the commencement 
oixhe fourth, a deplorable corruption of doctrine, discipline, and 
morals, had crept into the church, and disfigured the body of 
Christ. Hegesippus, an ecclesiastical historian, who wrote in the 
second century, declares that the virgin purify of the church was 
confined to tJie days of the apostles. Nay, Jerome tells us, that 
" the primitive churches were tainted with gross errors, while the 
" apostles were alive, and the blood of Christ yet warm in Judea.^' 
Cyprian, in the third century, complained of universal depravity 
among the clergy, as well as the laity. He declares, " We observe 
" not the will of the Lord, having all our mind and study set upon 
" lucre and possessions, are given to pride, full of emulation and 
" dissension, and void of simplicity and faithful dealing." And 
again, the same writer complains, that " the priests had no devo- 
" tion, the deacons no fidelity ; that there was no charity in works, 
" no discipline in manners." Eusehius, describing the state of the 
church towards the close of the third century, gives the following 
representation. " Bishops rushed against bishops. Most detest- 
" able hypocrisy and dissimulation advanced even to the very height 
" of wickedness. We were not touched with any sense of the 
" divine judgment creeping in upon us, nor used any endeavours 
" to regain his favour ; but wickedly thinking that God neither 
" did regard nor would visit our crimes, we heaped one wicked- 
" ness upon another. Those who seemed to be our pastors, reject- 
" ing the rule of piety, were inflamed with mutual contentions against 
one another ; and while they were only taken up with contentions, 
" threatenings, emulation, mutual hatred, and enmity, every one 
" eagerly pursued his ambition in a tyrannical manner." 

After such descriptions as these, let us hear no more of the primi- 
tive church being so pure, and all her ministers so humble and 
disinterested, as to preclude the probability of any of them being 
actuated by ambition, or disposed to usurp unscriptural authority. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 187 

All authentic history shows that such a conclusion is as false in 
fact, as it is inconsistent with the uniform character of human 
nature. Yes ; that mystery of iniquity which began to work 
under the ministry of our Saviour himself, and which retarded the 
growth of the church, while it was watered with the tears and the 
blood of the apostles, might be expected to prove, as it did, in a 
much greater degree, her bane, in after times. But, perhaps it 
will be said, that, although some of the clergy in the second and 
third centuries, were ambitious, and disposed to usurp unscriptural 
power 5 yet we cannot suppose that their claims would have been 
calmly yielded, and their usurpations submitted to without a strug- 
gle, by the other clergy, and by the body of the people. If, then, 
such claims were made, and such usurpations effected, why do we 
not find in the early history of the church, some account of changes 
so memorable, and of conflicts so dreadful, as must have attended 
their introduction ? 

In answer to this question, let it be rememberecj, that the nations 
over which the Christian religion was spread with so much rapi- 
dity during the first three centuries, were sunk in deplorable 
ignorance. Grossly illiterate, very few were able to read ; and 
even to these few, manuscripts were of difficult access. At that 
period, popular eloquence was the great engine of persuasion ; and 
where the character of the mind is not fixed by reading, and a 
consequent habit of attention and accurate thinking, it is impossible 
to say how deeply and suddenly it may be operated upon by such 
an engine. A people of this description, wholly unaccustomed to 
speculations on government ; universally subjected to despotic rule 
in the state ; having no just ideas of religious' liberty ; altogether 
unfurnished with the means of communicating and uniting with 
each other, which the art of printing has since afforded ; torn with 
dissensions among themselves, and liable to be turned about loith 
every wind of doctrine, such a people could offer little resistance 
to those who were ambitious of ecclesiastical power. A fairer 
opportunity for the few to take the advantage of the ignorance, the 
credulity, the divisions, and the weakness of the many, can scarcely 
be imagined. In truth, under these circumstances, ecclesiastical 
usurpation is so far from being improbable ; that, to suppose it not 
to have taken place, would be to suppose a continued miracle. 

Nor is there more difficulty in supposing that these encroach- 



188 LETTER VIII. 

inents were submitted to by the clergi/,ihan by the people. Some 
yielded through fear of the bold and domineering spirits who con- 
tended for seats of honour ; some with the hope of obtaining 
preferment themselves in their turn ; and some from that lethargy 
and sloth which ever prevent a large portion of mankind from 
engaging in any thing which requires enterprise and exertion. To 
these circumstances it may be added, that, while some of the 
preshyters^ under the name of hisliops^ assumed unscriptural 
authority over the rest of that order ; the increasing power of the 
latter over the deacons, and other subordinate grades of church 
officers, offered something like a recompense for their submission to 
those who claimed a power over themselves. 

In addition to all these circumstances, it is to be recollected, that 
the encroachments and the change in question took place gradually. 
When great strides in the assumption of power are suddenly 
made, they seldom fail to rouse resentment, and excite opposition. 
But when made artfully, and by slow degrees, nothing is more 
common than to see them pass without opposition, and almost 
without notice. Instances of this kind among nations sunk in 
ignorance, and long accustomed to despotic government, are 
numberless ; and they are by no means rare even among the more 
enlightened. The British nation, in the seventeeth century, saw a 
monarch restored with enthusiasm, and almost without opposition, 
to the throne, by those very persons, who, a itw years before, had 
declared the bitterest hatred to royalty. At the beginning of the 
nineteenth century, one of the most enlightened nations oi Europe , 
in a little more than twelve years after dethroning and decapitating 
a mild and gentle king, and, after denouncing kingly government 
with almost every possible expression of abhorrence, yielded, 
without a struggle, to the will of a despotic usurper. And, still 
more recently, we have seen a people, enlightened and free, who 
had for more than two centuries maintained and boasted of their 
republican character, submit ignobly and at once, to the yoke of a 
monarch imposed on them by a powerful neighbour. In short, the 
most limited knowledge of human nature, and of history, shows 
not only the possibility, but the actual and frequent occurrence 
of changes from free government to tyranny and despotism, in a 
much shorter period than a century ; and ail this in periods when 
information was more equally diffused, and the principles of social 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 189 

order much better understood, than in the second and third centu- 
ries of the Christian sera. 

But we may go a step further. It is not only manifest, that the 
state of the church and of the v/orld, at the period in question, was 
such as to render the progress of doctrinal corruption, and of 
clerical domination probable, but it is on all hands acknowledged, 
that such corruption and domination, did, in fact, take place. In 
support of this assertion, many instances might be produced 5 but 
I shall content myself with a h\ff of the most remarkable. 

The administering the Lord's supper to infants, was a corrup- 
tion which early arose in the church. It is certain that this 
corruption existed in the second century. Cyprian, in the third 
century, speaks of it not as a new thing, but as an ordinary prac- 
tice. Augustin, some time afterwards, calls it an apostolical tradi- 
tion, represents it as a general custom, and expressly founds the 
propriety and necessity of it on John vi. 5^. And this practice 
prevailed so long, that Bishop Bossuet, in a treatise on the 
communion, traces it down to the twelfth century. Now that this 
practice had no foundation, either in scripture or apostolic example, 
is conceded by almost the whole Christian world. How, then, 
shall we account for its introduction and general adoption in the 
church ? Can any one tell when it was introduced ? By tokom ? 
Whether it met with any opposition ? Whether among the faith- 
ful of that day, any church refused to adopt it ? And why we are 
not able to find in all antiquity, an account of any disputes and 
struggles which took place on this subject ? I will venture to say 
that no man can give any authentic and satisfactory information on 
any of these points. Of course, on the principal assumed by our 
episcopal brethren, we are compelled to conclude, that this practice 
was not an innovation, but derived from the apostles. This case 
is even stronger than that which it is brought to illustrate ; for as, 
on the one hand, there was less temptation, on the ordinary prin- 
ciples of human nature, to adopt this unscriptural abuse of the 
eucharistj than to contrive and extend ecclesiastical domination ; 
so, on the other, it was more likely to strike the mind at once with 
disgust, and to make an unfavourable impression on the mass of 
the people. 

Another instance of acknowledged, and most remarkable usurp- 



190 LETTER Vlll. 

ation, within the period which we are considering, is the pre-emi- 
nence which archbishops and metropolitans claimed over the 
ordinary bishops. All protestant episcopalians allow that bishops 
are, by divine right, equal; and, of course, that archbishops, 
metropolitans, and 'patriarchs, are grades of mere human invention. 
But it is certain that an inequality of rank among bishops began to 
take place in the church so early, became in a little while so gene^ 
ral, and was introduced with so little opposition and noise, that 
some have undertaken, on this very ground, to prove that it was of 
apostolical origin. Yet our opponents in this controversy, with one 
voice allow, that no warrant is to be found for it either in Scripture 
or in primitive practice. How then (to adopt their own argu- 
ment) was this inequality introduced ? Can we suppose that any 
of the pious bishops began to be so early infected with ambition as 
to usurp unscriptural authority ? Or can we suppose that the other 
bishops would quietly submit to such usurpation? No; on the 
principles of episcopal reasoning, we must conclude that no such 
usurpation was possible ; and that archbishops, and metropolitans 
existed from the beginning. But how does the mist of false theory 
vanish before the light of truth and fact ! 

Closely connected with the introduction of archbishops, and 
other grades, in the episcopal office, is the rise and progress of the 
papacy. It is certain that the antichristian claims of the bishop 
of Rome were begun before the close of the second century. The 
writings of Irenceus and Tertullian, both furnish abundant evidence 
of this fact. Yet the records of antiquity give so little information 
respecting the various steps by which this " man of sin" rose to the 
possession of his power; they contain so little evidence of any 
efficient opposition to his claims ; and represent the submission of 
the other bishops as being so early and general, that the papists 
attempt, from these circumstances, to prove the divine origin of 
their system. Yet what protestant is there who does not reject 
this reasoning as totally fallacious, and conclude that the supremacy 
of the bishop of Rome is an unscriptural usurpation ? And although 
the most impartial and learned divines may and do differ among 
themselves in fixing the several dates of the rise, progress, and 
establishment of this great spiritual usurper ; yet \hefact, that he 
did thus ri^e^ and advance, and erect a tyrannical throne in the 
church, contrary to all that might have been expected both from 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 191 

the piety and the selfishness of the early christians, is doubted by 
none. 

Scarcely less remarkable, or in itself improbable, was the change 
which early took place in the mode of electing and installing the 
pastors of the church. You have been informed in preceding parts 
of this work, that, as each bishop, in the primitive church, was the 
pastor of a single congregation ; so every bishop was elected by 
ike people of his charge, and ordained to the work of the ministry 
in their presence. It is certain, however, that at least as early a^ 
the fourth century, this power of electing their own bishops began 
to be gradually taken away from the people; and that in the course 
of two or three centuries afterwards, the privilege was almost wholly 
withdrawn from them. But how came a right so popular, and so 
highly prized, to be tamely surrendered? And why is it thai the 
records of antiquity furnish so little information on this subject; 
insomuch that we scarcely know any thing more than the two 
great facts, that this right of popular election was once enjoyed, 
and that it was soon afterwards taken away ? It is of little import- 
ance how these questions may be answered by different theorists. 
It is enough for us to know that the facts are established ; and that 
the same principles of reasoning apply to this case, as to the main 
point in dispute with our episcopal brethren. 

The abolition of the office of riding elder, through the greater 
part of the Christian world, is another signal instance of early de- 
parture from the model of the primitive church. The New Testa- 
ment speaks of this class of officers as existing in the apostolic age. 
Several early writers of reputation, as we have seen, allude to them ; 
and Hilary, who wrote in the fourth century, expressly declares, 
that they once existed in the church, but were gradually discon- 
tinued. And, though he professes not to be able fully to explain the 
reason of their falling into disuse, yet he refers it to the pride and 
ambition of the clergy, who were unwilling to have officers of this 
class sitting with them, and judging in the affairs of the church. 
Here a difficulty occurs quite as great, and of the same kind as that 
which our episcopal brethren urge in the case before us. How 
shall we account for these elders consenting to be deprived of their 
office, and banished from the church ? How shall we account for 
the people yielding to this encroachment on their rights ; could a 
change so important and' extensive have taken place without a 



192 LETTER VIII. 

struggle ? Why is it, then, that we find no account of this struggle 
in the records of antiquity ? We may not be able to return decisive 
and satisfactory answers to these questions : but the great fact, that 
the change to which they refer, did take place ; and that it was 
effected gradually, and without any violent struggle, at least so far 
as history has informed us, are truths abundantly established. 

This enumeration of early departures from primitive purity, 
might be greatly extended, were it either necessary, or consistent 
with our limits. I might show, that before the close of the second 
century, sub-deacons, acolythes, exorcistSy and other officers of 
inferior grade, who had no place in the apostolic church, were 
introduced by human pride and folly, and employed as means of 
elevating the clergy, and of placing them at a greater distance from 
the people. When these unauthorized offices were first instituted, 
we are no where informed. By whom or by what means they were 
introduced, we are equally ignorant. But the fact, that they did 
creep into the church without any other than human authority, is 
undeniable. 

All these deviations from primitive usage took place at an 
early period. They were of a nature calculated to interest the 
feelings both of the clergy and of the people, and to excite long 
and violent opposition from various quarters. Yet the records of 
antiquity give us no satisfactory information concerning any such 
opposition, or the steps by which these innovations were introduced. 
Now what good reason can be assigned, why ihaX particular kind 
of clerical usurpation which Presbyterians assert to have taken 
place, should appear more improbable and incredible, than the 
instances of similar usurpation which are universally acknow- 
ledged ? Does not every man of common sense see that the former 
was quite as likely to happen as the latter? Nay, is it not evident 
that some of the latter are much more difficult to be accounted for 
than the former ? Yes 5 precisely the same reasoning that will 
enable us to account for the introduction of archbishops, for the 
abolition of the office of riding elders, and for the discontinuance 
of the popular election of bishops, will also enable us with even 
more ease, to explain the fact, that some of the pastors of the 
churches, within an hundred years after the apostolic age, should 
succeed in gradually encroaching on the rights of their equals, and 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 193 

in appropriating to themselves titles and honours which originally 
belonged to every pastor. 

Nor is it wonderful that we find so little said concerning these 
usurpations in tiie early records of antiquity. There was probably 
but little written on the subject ; since those who were most 
ambitious to shine as writers, were most likely to be forward in 
making unscriptural claims themselves ; and, of course, would be 
little disposed to record their own shame. It is likewise probable, 
that the little that was written on such a subject, would be lost 5 
because the art of printing being unknown, and the trouble and 
expense of multiplying copies being only incurred for the sake of 
possessing interesting and popular works, it was not to be expect- 
ed, that writings so hostile to the ambition and vices of the clergy, 
would be much read, if it were possible to suppress them. And 
when to these circumstances we add, that literature, after the fourth 
century, was chiefly in the hands of ecclesiastics ; that many 
important works written within the first three centuries are known 
to be lostj and that of the iew which remain, some are acknow- 
ledged on all hands, to have been grossly corrupted, and radically 
mutilated, we cannot wonder that so little in explanation of the 
various steps of clerical usurpation has reached our times. 

I have now shown, that a change in the character and powers 
of some of the primitive bishops was possible, and even probable, 
I have shown that changes quite as likely to be vigorously resisted, 
and to occupy a large space in the early history of the church, 
were in fact early introduced, without any proof of such resistance 
being found in the scanty and mutilated records of antiquity. 
We are under no obligation to go further. What has been said is 
abundantly sufficient to refute the episcopal argument. If prelati- 
cal bishops are no where to be found in scripture, but are found in 
the records of the fourth century ; then to show that their introduc- 
tion, within the first three hundred years was practicable, is all 
that a reasonable Episcopalian can demand. But this, though 
sufficient to silence our opponents, may not satisfy an inquisitive 
antiquarian. It remains, then, to take one step further, and to 
show, that the change which has been proved to be practicable, 
and even probable, did actually take places that it is not a mere 
hypothesis, adopted without evidence, but a matter of fact, which 
the historian ought not to overlook, even if it were wholly uncon- 
2 B 



194 LETTER VIII. 

nected with modern controversies. The proof of this fact shall be 
drawn from the following sources : 

First ; From a comparison of \he general language of scripture, 
and the writers of the first two centuries, concerning bishops, with 
the general language used on the same subject in the fourth 
century. We have before shown, that in the New Testament, 
the titles bishop and presbyter are indiscriminately applied to the 
same persons; and that no style of expression is employed by the 
Spirit of God, which gives the least intimation that bishops were an 
order distinct from, and superior {o,preshyters\n the apostolic age. 
We have shown, that the same indiscriminate application of scrip- 
tural titles, and the same language expressive of ministerial parity, 
are found, with scarcely any exception, in all the authentic writings 
of the first two hundred years. It is not necessary here to repeat 
the proof of these positions. They will therefore be assumed as 
established points. But in the writings of the third century, we 
begin to perceive a style of expression indicating the commence- 
ment of a distmction between bishops and presbyters ; and in the 
fourth and fifth centuries, we find this distinction strongly and 
generally marked. In short, that, in the course of the first three 
hundred years after Christ, there was gradually introduced a 
remarkable change of language, in speaking of the titles and powers 
of Christian ministers, is admitted, not only by a great majority of 
ecclesiastical historians, and of other learned men, but also by 
many of the best informed, and most impartial Episcopalians them- 
selves. Now whence did this change in the current language of 
that period arise ? Not from accident, nor from the caprice of a 
few individuals. Neither of these would be sufficient to account 
for a change so important and extensive. It arose evidently from 
a change in the nature of the offices expressed by this language. 
It arose from the fact, that in the apostolic age, and for more than 
a hundred years afterwards, prelatical bishops had no existence ; 
and that in the fourth century, this class of officers, as a distinct 
order, had been introduced, and of course, required new distinc- 
tions, or a new use of terms and titles to designate their character. 
Secondly ; That bishops, as an order of clergy superior to 
presbyters^ were introduced after the apostoUc age, and without 
any divine warrant, may also be established by the declarations of 
several approved writers, who lived near the tinie when this change 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 195 

occurred, and who expressly assert that it took place. The quota- 
tions from Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom, &c. detailed in \hejift/i 
letter, are equally clear and decisive on this subject. The decla- 
rations o^ Jerome, in particular, are so pointed and unquestionable, 
so formally stated, and repeated in such a variety of forms, that 
they must silence even prejudice and sophistry themselves. Were 
not these learned men as likely to understand the subject on which 
they wrote as any of the present day? It is credible that they 
should be totally deceived concerning a fact, which, if it did not 
fall under their own observation, must have been personally 
witnessed b}' their immediate predecessors ? It is not credible. 
Yet unless we suppose these writers to have been either deceived 
or dishonest, the Presbyterian or apostolic form of church govern- 
ment, was gradually set aside and gave place lo prelacy, within 
three hundred and fifty years after Christ. 

Thirdly; On the supposition that diocesan episcopacy was a 
mere human invention, introduced long after the apostolic age, we 
might expect to find this form of ecclesiastical government first 
embraced in populous and wealthy cities, and making its way 
more slowly in the remote and obscure parts of the church. And 
accordingly we find this to have been precisely the fact. Prelacy 
was first introduced and organized in Rome, Aniioch, Alexandria, 
Carthage, &c. From these, as from so many centres, it spread 
into the neighbouring countries, and finally became general. But 
in the parts of the church which were placed at the greatest distance 
from these seats of corruption, the reception of prelacy was con- 
siderably later. Hilary and others declare, that many of the 
African presbyters continued to exercise the ordaining power 
until the middle of the fourth century. The churches in Scotland 
remained Presbyterian in their government, from the introduction 
of Christianity into that country, in the second century , until the 
ffth century, when Palladius succeeded in introducing diocesan 
bishops.* It also appears, from the most authentic history, that the 
country churches generally maintained the primitive plan of 
government much longer than those of the cities, and were from one 
or two centuries later in receiving episcopacy as a superior order. 



* This fact is ascertained by the writings of Major, Fordon, Boethius, 



196 LETTER VTIl. 

The ministers of these countr}' congregations, were called Cho- 
repiscopi, or country bishops. They continued to exercise full 
episcopal powers a considerable time after the presbyters within 
and near the great cities had become subject to diocesans ; until 
at length the influence of the bishop of Borne, and of some other 
ambitious prelates, procured a decree of the council of Sardis to 
suppress the chorepiscopi entirely.* The churches of the valleys 
in Savoy and Piedmont, were still more successful in supporting 
primitive episcopacy. Although they retained the term bishop in 
its original meaning, yet they rejected the government of prelatical 
bishops, as well as the authority of the pope, and continued to set 
an example of ministerial parity for many centuries. All these 
circumstances prove that diocesan episcopacy was an innovation. 
If it had been the apostolical model, and especially if it had been 
deemed so important and fundamental as our opponents represent 
it to be, then those churches which were most remote from worldly 
influence, and discovered the greatest love for primitive simplicity, 
.would have been ever found adhering to the system of prelacy with 
peculiar zeal. Instead of this, the more we examine the records 
of antiquity, the more we shall find precisely the reverse to be the 
fact. A circumstance which plainly evinces that ministerial 
parity was both the doctrine and practice of the apostolic age; and 
that episcopacy, in the modern sense of the word, is the invention 
of man, and was introduced long afterwards. 

Fourthly ; The decrees of some of the early councils concern- 
ing bishops, clearly evince that such a change as we have supposed, 
really took place. It is impossible to look into the decrees of the 
numerous councils which were convened within the the first five or 
six centuries, without perceiving constant provision made, on the 
one hand, for gradually extending the power of the bishops ; and, 
on the other, for restraining the encroachments of those whose 
ambition had become inordinate and offensive. We find one 
council decreeing, that bishops should no longer be ordained for 
country places or small towns ; and that when the then incumbent 
bishops of small and obscure places should happen to die, no suc- 



* The reason given by the council for this decree is remarkable: 
Nevilescat nomen Episcopi;\. Q.\tsi the title of bishop should become 
too cheap. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 197 

cessors should be appointed. We find another enacting a canon, 
that country bishops should no longer be allowed to ordain ; and 
that citi/ presbyters should not be thereafter permitted to ordain, 
out of their owji parishes, without having the permission of the 
city bishops. And the reasons given for these and other restric- 
tions, are, not the command of Christ ; not apostolical example ; 
but that the honour of the church might be preserved, and that the 
episcopal dignity might be maintained. The very existence of 
these decrees, proves that presbyters had been before allowed to 
ordain ; and that bishops were gradually undergoing a change 
from the parochial to the diocesan character. In contrast with 
these and similar canons, it would be easy to produce others, for 
restraining the indecent attempts of some bishops to enlarge their 
dioceses, and to encroach on the limits of their neighbours.* If 
we had never heard of the fact before, these canons would suggest 
the suspicion, that bishops were now, by little and little, extending 
their pastoral care from single congregations to extensive districts. 
Fifthly ; The gradual diminution of the number of bishops, 
after the first three centuries, serves to confirm the fact for which I 
am contending. The great number of bishops found in the early 
ages of the church, was remarked in a former letter. Tiiey appear 
to have been as numerous within two or three centuries of the 
apostolic age, as modern parish ministers. But as we recede from 
that period, we find their number gradually diminishing, in exact 
proportion as their claims and honours became extended. In the 
island of Crete, where we are informed that in early times there were 
one hundred bishops, in a few centuries afterwards we find but 
twelve. In a small district in Asia, where, in the third century, there 
were settled one hundred and five bishops, in two or three centuries 
their number was reduced to nine. Numerous instances of the same 
kind might be produced, were it necessary or proper. And this 
diminution of the number of bishops is the more remarkable, 
because, at the same time, the number of converts to Christianity, 
the extent of the church, and of course the call for ministerial 
labours, were daily increasing. What is the obvious inference from 

* For a more full account than it is possible to give in this manual, of 
these canons, and other proceedings of early councils, concerning the 
powers of bishops, Baxter's Treatise of Episcopacy, London, 4to. 1681. 
and the learned Clarkson's Primitive Episcopacy, 8vo. 1688. 



198 LETTER VIll. 

these facts ? It is that primitive bishops were a very different class 
of officers from those which bore that name three or four centuries 
afterwards ; and consequently that, during this period, an impor- 
tant change had taken place in the character and powers of bishops. 

Finally ; It is no small argument in favour of the truth of my 
position, that it is confirmed by the most learned and impartial 
historians, and other competent judges, of modern times. 

The first writer whom I shall quote in proof of the fact which I 
am endeavouring to establish, is the learned Dr. Mosheiniy a Lu- 
theran divine, whose Ecclesiastical History has been, for half a 
century, the theme of praise, for the general impartiality as well as 
erudition manifested by its author. In his account of xhejirst cen- 
tury, he has the following remarks. '* The rulers of the church at 
" this time, were called t\\.\\QT presbyters or bishops^ which two 
" titles are, in the New Testament, undoubtedly applied to the same 
" order of men. These were persons of eminent gravity, and such 
" as had distinguished themselves by their superior sanctity and 
" merit. Their particular functions were not always the same ; 
" for while some of them confined their labours to the instruction 
" of the people, others contributed in different ways to the edifica. 
" tion of the church : such was the constitution of the Christian 
" church in its infancy, when its assemblies were neither numerous 
" nor splendid. Three or four presbyters, men of remarkable 
*^ piety and wisdom, ruled these small congregations in perfect har- 
<< mony, nor did they stand in need of any president or superior to 
" maintain concord and order, where no dissensions were known. 
" But the number of the presbyters and deacons increasing with that 
"of the churches, and the sacred work of the ministry growing 
" more painful and weighty by a number of additional duties, these 
" new circumstances required new regulations. It was then judged 
" necessary that one man of distinguished gravity and wisdom 
" should preside in the council of presbyters, in order to distribute 
" among his colleagues their several tasks, and to be a centre of 
*^ union to the whole society. This person was at first styled the 
" Angel of the church to which he belonged : but was afterwards 
" distinguished by the name of bishop or inspector ; a name bor- 
" rowed from the Greek language, and expressing the principal 
" part of the episcopal function, which was to inspect into, and 
" superintend the affairs of the church. Let none, however, con- 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 199 

" found the bishops of this primitive and golden period of the church 
<« with those of whom we read in the following ages. For though 
" they were both distinguished by the same name, yet they differ- 
" ed extremely, and that in many respects. A bishop during the 
" first and second century, was a person who had the care of one 
" Christian assembly, which, at that time, was, generally speaking, 
<* small enough to be contained in a private house. In this assem- 
" biy he acted, not so much with the authority of a master, as with 
" the zeal and diligence of a faithful servant. He instructed the 
" people, performed the several parts of divine worship, attended 
" the sick, and inspected into the circumstances and supplies of the 
« poor." Eccles. Hist, I. 101. 104—106 Such is the representa- 
tion which this learned historian gives of the government of the 
Christian church during the^rs^, and the greater part of the second 
century. 

Of the tliird century he speaks in the following manner. " The 

" face of things began now to change in the Christian church. The 

" ancient method of ecclesiastical government, seemed, in general? 

" still to subsist, while, at the same time, by imperceptible steps, it 

" varied from the primitive rule, and degenerated towards the form 

" of a religious monarchy. For the bishops aspired to higher 

" degrees of power and authority than they had formerly possessed, 

" and not only violated the rights o( the people, but also made gra- 

" dual encroachments upon the privileges of the presbyters. And 

" that they might cover these usurpations with an air of justice, and 

*^ an appearance of reason, they published new doctrines concern- 

" ing the nature of the Church, and of the Episcopal dignity. 

" One of the principal authors of this change in the government of 

" the church was Cyprian, who pleaded for the power of the bi- 

" shops with more zeal and vehemence than had ever been hitherto 

" employed in that cause. This change in the form of ecclesias- 

*' tical government was soon followed by a train of vices, which 

" dishonoured the character and authority of those to whom the 

" administration of the church was committed. For though seve- 

" ral yet continued to exhibit to the world illustrious examples of 

" primitive piety and christian virtue ; yet many were sunk in lux- 

" ury and voluptuousness ; puffed up with vanity, arrogance, and 

" ambition 5 possessed with a spirit of contention and discord; and 

" addicted to many other vices, that cast an undeserved reproach 



200 LETTER VIII. 

" upon the holy religion, of which they were the unworthy profess- 
" ors and ministers. This is testified in such an ample manner; 
" by the repeated complaints of many of the most respectable wri- 
" ters of this age, that truth will not permit us to spread the veil 
" which we should otherwise be desirous to cast over such enormi- 
" lies among an order so sacred. The bishops assumed, in many 
" places, a princely authority. They appropriated to their evan- 
" gelical function, the splendid ensigns of temporal majesty. A 
" throne, surrounded with ministers, exalted above his equals^ the 
" servant <&f the meek and humble Jesus; and sumptuous garments 
" dazzled the eyes and the minds of the multitude into an ignorant 
" veneration for thgir arrogated authority. The example of the 
" bishops was ambitiously imitated by the presbyters, who, neglect- 
" ing the sacred duties of their station, abandoned themselves to the 
" indolence and delicacy of an effeminate and luxurious life. The 
" deacons, beholding the presbyters deserting thus their functions 
" boldly usurped their rights and privileges ; and the effects of a 
" corrupt ambition were spread through every rank of the sacred 
« order." I. 265—267. 

I shall only add a short extract from the same writer^s account 
of the fourth century. " The bishops, whose opulence and autho- 
" rity were considerably increased since the reign of Constantine, 
" began to introduce gradually innovations into the form of eccle- 
" siastical discipline, and to change the ancient government of the 
" church. Their first step was an entire exclusion of the people 
" from all part in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs ; and 
" afterwards, they, by decrees, divested even the presbyters of 
" their ancient privileges, and their primitive authority, that they 
" might have no importunate protesters to control their ambition, 
" or oppose their proceedings ; and principally that they might 
*' either engross to themselves, or distribute as they thought proper, 
" the possessions and revenues of the church. Hence it came to 
" pass that at the conclusion o{ ihe fourth century, there remained 
" no more than a mere shadow of the ancient government of the 
" church. Many of the privileges which had formerly belonged 
" to the presbyters and people, were usurped by the bishops ; and 
" many of the rights which had been formally vested in the uni- 
<* versal church, were transferred to the emperors, and to sub- 
" ordinate officers and magistrates." I. 348. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELx\CY. 20I 

Such is the rejDresentation of Moshei?n, one of the most learned 
men of the eighteenth century ; and who had probably investigated 
the early liistory of the church with as much diligence and penetra- 
tion as any man that ever lived. 

The next citation shall be taken from Gibbon's Decline and 
Fall of the Roman Empire. The hostility of this writer to the 
Christian religion is well known. Of course, on any subject 
involving the divine origin of Christianity, I should feel little dis- 
position either to respect his judgment, or to rely on his assertions. 
But on the subject before us, which is a question o(fact, and which 
he treats historically, he had no temptation to deviate from 
impartiality ; or, if such temptation had existed, it would have 
been likely to draw him to the side of ecclesiastical aristocracy 
and splendour, rather than to that of primitive simplicity. His deep 
and extensive learning, no competent judge ever questioned : and, 
indeed, his representations pn this subject, are fortified by so many 
references to the most approved writers, that they cannot be con- 
sidered as resting on his candour or veracity alone.* 

Mr. Gibbon thus describes the character and duties of Christian 
bishops in the first and second centuries : " The public functions 
'^ of religion were solely entrusted to the established ministers of 
" the church, the bishops and the yresbyters ; two appellations 
" which, in their first origin, appear to have distinguished the same 
'* office^ and the same order of persons. The name of presbyter 
" was expressive of their age, or rather of their gravity and wisdom. 
" The title of bishop denoted their inspection over the faith and 
" manners of the Christians who were committed to their pastoral 
" care. In proportion to the respective numbers of the faithful, a 
" larger or smaller number of these episcopal presbyters guided 
" each infant congregation, with equal authority, and with united 
" counsels. But the most perfect equality of freedom requires the 

* The pious episcopal divine, Dr. Haweis, speaking" of Mr. Gibbon's 
mode of representing- this subject, expresses himself in the following 
manner. " Where no immediate bias to distort the truth, leaves him an 
** impartial witness, I will quote Gibbon with pleasure. I am conscious 
« his authority is more likely to weigh with the world in general, than 
" mine. I will therefore, simply report his account of the government 
" and nature of the primitive church. I think we shall not in this point 
«* greatly differ." Eccles. Hist I. 416. 
2 C 



202 LETTER VIII. 

" directing hand of a superior magistrate ; and the order of public 
" deliberations soon introduces the office of a president, invested 
" at least with the authority of collecting the sentiments, and of 
" executing the resolutions of the assembly. A regard for 
" the public tranquillity, which would so frequently have been 
*' interrupted by annual, or by occasional elections, induced the 
" primitive Christians to constitute an honourable and perpetual 
" magistracy, and to choose one of the wisest and most holy among 
" their presbyters, to execute, during his life, the duties of their 
** ecclesiastical governor. It was under these circumstances that 
" the lofty title of bishop began to raise itself above the humble 
" appellation of presbyter ; and while the latter remained the most 
" natural distinction for the members of every Christian senate, 
" the former was appropriated to the dignity of its new president. 
*' The pious and humble presbyters who were first dignified with 
" the episcopal title, could not possess, and would probably have 
" rejected the power and pomp which now encircle the tiara of the 
" Roman Pontiff, or the mitre of a German prelate. The primitive 
** bishops were considered only as the^rs^ of their equals, and the 
" honourable servants of a free people. Whenever the episcopal 
" chair became vacant by death, a new president was chosen 
" among the presbyte.'-s, by the suffrage of the whole congregation. 
" Such was the mild and equal constitution by which the Christians 
'* were governed more than a hundred years after the death of the 
" apostles."* Decline and Fall, Vol. II. 272—275. 

Concerning the state of episcopacy in the third century, Mr. 
Gibbon thus speaks. " As the legislative authority of theparticu- 
" lar churches, was insensibly superseded by the use of councils^ 
" the bishops obtained by their alliance, a much larger share of 
" executive and arbitrary power ; and, as soon as they were con- 
" nected by a sense of their common interest, they were enabled 
" to attack with united vigour the original rights of the clergy and 
*f people. The prelates of the third century imperceptibly 
" changed the language of exhortation into that of command, 



* Here is an explicit declaration, that the presidency or standing 
moderaiorship of one of the presbyters, among his colleagues, without 
any claim to superiority of order, was the only kind of episcopacy that 
existed in the church until near the close of the second century. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 203 

" scattered the seeds of future usurpations, and supplied by scrip- 
" ture allegories, and declamatory rhetoric, their deficiency of 
" force and of reason. They exahed the unity and power of the 
" church, as it was represented in the episcopal office, of which 
" every bishop enjoyed an equal and undivided portion. Princes and 
" magistrates, it was often repeated, might boast an eartlily claim 
" to a transitory dominion. It was the episcopal authority alone, 
" which was derived from the Deity, and extended itself over this, 
" and over another world. The bishops were the vicegerents of 
" Christ, the successors of the apostles, and the mystic substitutes 
" of the high priest of the Mosaic law. Their exclusive privi- 
" lege of conferring the sacerdotal character, invaded the freedom 
" both of clerical and of popular elections 5 and if, in the admi- 
" nistration of the church, they sometimes consulted the judgment 
" of the presbyters, or the inclination of the people, they most 
" carefully inculcated the merit of such a voluntary condescension.'^ 
—I. p. 276, 277. 

Dr. Haweis, an episcopal divine, in his Ecclesiastical History, a 
late and popular work before quoted, substantially agrees 
with Dr. Mosheim, and Mr. Gibbon, in their representations on 
this subject. He explicitly pronounces with them, that primitive 
episcopacy was j^aroc/im/, and not diocesan; that clerical pride 
and ambition gradually introduced prelacy; that there was no 
material innovation, however, on the primitive model, until the 
middle of the second century ; and that after this, the system of 
imparity made rapid progress, until there arose, in succession, 
diocesan bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, and, 
finally, the ^o/^e himself. 

The great body of ecclesiastical historians give, in substance, 
the same account. There is, indeed, some difference of opinion 
among them concerning the times at which the various steps in the 
rise and progress of prelacy were taken, and concerning the means 
which ambitious ecclesiastics employed in making their successive 
encroachments ; but I know of no protestant historian who has the 
character of even tolerable impartiality, who does not represent 
prelacy as a human invention, which was brought in some time 
after the apostles' days, and which arose gradually and almost 
insensibly from small beginnings, until it terminated in the grand 
and triumphant usurpation of the bishop of Rome. Hence profes^ 



204 LETTER VIII. 

sor Whitakerj an episcopal divine of great learning, and of high 
authority, speaking of the conceded fact, that prelacy was intro- 
duced after the apostolic age, and as a remedy against schism, 
frankly declares, that " the remedy was almost worse than the 
" disease ; for as at first one presbyter was set over the rest, and 
" made bishop, so afterwards one bishop was set over the other 
" bishops. Thus that custom begot the pope and his monarchy, 
" and brought them by little and little into the church." Regim. 
Eccles, p. 540. 

The fact being thus established, that diocesan episcopacy was 
not sanctioned by the apostles ; that it was the offspring of human 
ambition ; and that it was gradually introduced into the church ; 
I shall not detain you long in considering the precise gradations 
by which it was introduced, or the precise date to be assigned to 
each step in its progress. Such an inquiry is as unnecessary and 
unimportant as it is difficult. But as it may gratify some readers 
to know how those who have most deeply and successfully' explored 
antiquity, have considered the subject, I shall attempt a sketch 
of what appears to have been the rise and progress of this remark- 
able usurpation. 

The christian religion spread itself during the apostolic age, over 
a large part of the Roman empire. It was first received in the 
principal cities, Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. 
Here congregations appear to have been first formed, and church 
officers first appointed. As the places of worship were usually 
private houses, it follows of course that each congregation was 
comparatively small. And as we read o{ great multitudes having 
believed in several of the larger cities, we may infer that there 
were a number of these congregations, or small house churches in 
each of those cities. 

Each primitive congregation was furnished with one or more 
elders, and also with deacons. The elders were of two kinds : 
the first class were ministers of the Gospel, and therefore taught 
and lead the devotions of the people, as well as ruled m the church. 
The other class assisted as rulers only. It is not certain that both 
these classes of elders were found in every church. We only 
know that they both existed in the apostolic age ; and that all the 
elders of each congregation, when convened, formed a kind of 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 205 

parochial presbytery, or church session. The elders were also 
called bishops. Of these each congregation was always furnished 
with owe, and sometimes with several, according to the number of 
its members, and other circumstances. We are expressly told in 
the sacred history, that in the days of the apostles there were 
a number of bishops in each of the cities of Ephesus and Fhilippi; 
and it is most probable that these were the associated pastors of 
congregations in those cities respectively. 

In those cases in which there were several pastors or bishops 
in the same church, they were at first perfectly, and in all respects 
equal. " They ruled the church," as Jerome expresses it, '' in 
common ;" and the ahernate titles of bishop and elder belonged 
and were equally applied to all. It does not appear, that in the 
beginning, even a temporary chairman was found necessary. 
There was probably little formality in their mode of transacting 
business. A large portion of the spirit of their master supplied the 
place of specific rules, and of energetic government. But towards 
the close of the first century, when both churches and ministers 
had greatly multiplied ; when it was common to have a number of 
teaching as well as ruling elders in the same congregation ; when, 
with the increasing number, it is most probable that some unworthy 
characters had crept into the ministry ; and when, of course, the 
preservation of order in their parochial presbyteries was more 
difficult, the expedient of appointing a president or moderator, 
would naturally and almost unavoidably be adopted. This presid- 
ing presbyter was generally, at first, the oldest and gravest of the 
number ; but soon afterwards, as we are told, the rule of seniority 
was laid aside, and the most able, enterprising, and decisive 
presbyter, was chosen to fill the chair. After a while, the choice 
oi di president was not made at every meeting of the parochial 
presbytery or church session, but was made for an indefinite time, 
and often/or life ; in which case the choice usually fell upon the 
person who had the osost influence, and was supposed to possess 
the greatest weight of character. This chairman or moderator, 
who presided during the debates, collected the voices, and pro- 
nounced the sentences of the bench of presbyters, was, of course, 
the most conspicuous and dignified of the number. He had no 
pre-eminence of order over his brethren 5 but (to employ the 
illustration of a respectable episcopal divine, before quoted,) as 



206 LETTER Vlll. 

the chairman of a committee has a more honourable place than 
the rest of the members, while the committee is sitting ; so a 
chairman for life, in a dignified ecclesiastical court, vras generally 
regarded with peculiar respect and veneration. In conducting 
public worship, this chairman always look the lead; as the organ 
of the body, he called the other presbyters to the performance of 
the several parts assigned to them ; and usually himself prayed 
and preached. When the bench of presbyters was called to per- 
form an ordination, the chairman, of course, presided in this 
transaction ; and, in general, in all acts of the church session or 
consistory, he took the lead, and was the principal medium of 
communication. 

This practice of choosing a president in the consistorial courts 
appears to have begun in a short time after the death of the apos- 
tles, and to have been the only kind of pre-eminence that was 
enjoyed by any of the bishops, over their brethren, until about the 
middle, and, in some churches, till the close of the seco?ic? century. 
Indeed, Jerome declares, that this was the only kind of episcopal 
pre-eminence that existed in the church of Alexandria, one of the 
most conspicuous then in the world, until the middle of the third 
century. That such was the only superiority which the principal 
pastor of each church enjoyed in primitive times, and that such 
was the origin of this superiority, is evident, not only from the 
direct testimony of antiquity, but also, indirectly, from the names 
by which this officer is generally distinguished by the early writers. 
He is not only called emphatically, the bishop of the church ; but, 
as all his colleagues also had the title of bishop, he is, perhaps, 
more frequently styled, by way of distinction, the president, 
(nposjTwj) ; the chairman, (IIpos^poj) ; and the person who filled 
the first seat, (npwrop<a^s(5p<a), in the presbytery. Had we no 
other evidence in the case, these titles alone would go far towards 
establishing the origin and nature of his pre-eminence. 

The powers of this chairman were gradually increased. In 
some cases his own ambition, and, in others, the exigencies of par- 
ticular times and places, at once multiplied his duties, enlarged his 
authority, and augmented his honours. Not only the ruling elders, 
but also his colleagues in the ministry were led insensibly to look 
upon him with peculiar reverence. His presence began to be 
deemed necessary, at first to the regularity, and afterwards to the 



RISE AND PROGRESS OP PRELACY. 207 

validity of all the proceedings of the bench of presbyters. And as 
his office, in those times, was a post oi danger as well as oi honour, 
the rest of the presbyters would more readily submit to the claims 
of a man who put his life in his hand to serve the church. This 
may be called the first step in the rise of prelacy. The example 
once set in some of the principal cities, was probably soon adopted 
in the less populous towns, and in the country churches. 

This measure led to another equally natural. The pastors or 
bishops who resided in the same city, were led on different occa- 
sions to meet together, to consult and to transact various kinds of 
business. Their meetings were probably at first, attended with 
very little formality. In a short time, however, as Christianity 
gained ground, they came together more frequently ; had more 
business to transact ; and found it expedient to be more formal in 
their proceedings. A president or chairman became necessary, 
as in the smaller presbytery, or church session. Such an officer 
was accordingly chosen, sometimes at each meeting, but more fre- 
quently for an indefinite period, or for hfe. Whatever number of 
congregations and of ministers were thus united under a Presbytery, 
they were styled, (upon a principle of ecclesiastical unity which 
was then common,) one church. The standing moderator ov presi- 
dent of this larger Presbytery, was styled the bishop of the city in 
which he presided. This was a second step towards prelacy. 
At what precise time it was taken, is difficult to be ascertained. 
But before the close of the third century, so greatly increased were 
the affluence and pride of ecclesiastics, that the president or mode- 
rator of these meetings was seated on a lofty throne in the midst 
of the assembly, decorated with splendid robes, and loaded with 
peculiar honours. As he officially superintended the execution of 
the decrees of the assembly, his power gradually increased ; and it 
was a short transition from the exercise of power in the name of 
others, to the exercise of it without consulting them. 

In the towns where there was but one congregation, and that a 
small one, there was generally but one teaching presbyter asso- 
ciated with a number of ruling presbyters. This was Xhe pastor or 
bishop. When the congregation increased, and the introduction of 
other teachers was found necessary, the first retained his place as 
sole pastor, and the others came in as his assistants ; and although 
of the same order with himself, yet he alone was the responsible 



208 LETTER VIII. 

pastor. In short, the rest of the teaching pres&y^ers in this case, 
bore precisely the same relation to the bishop, on the score of rank, 
as curates bear to the rector in a large episcopal congregation. 
They were clothed with the same official power of preaching 
and administering ordinances with the pastor, and were capable, 
without any further ordination, of becoming pastors in their turn 5 
but while they remained in this situation, their labours were direct- 
ed by him. As a congregation under these circumstances, increased 
still more, and included a number of members from the neighbour- 
ing villages, some of these members, finding it inconvenient to attend 
the church in which the bishop officiated every Lord's day, began 
to lay plans for forming separate congregations nearer home. To 
this the bishop consented, on condition that the little worshipping 
societies thus formed, should consider themselves as still under his 
pastoral care, as amenable to the parent church, and as bound to 
obey him as their spiritual guide. When the pastor agreed to this 
arrangement, it was generally understood, that there should be but 
one communion table, and one baptistery in the parish ; and, of 
course, that when the members of these neighbouring societies 
wished to enjoy either of the sealing ordinances, they were to at- 
tend at the parent church, and receive them from the hands of the 
pastor or bishop himself. At ordinary seasons they were supplied 
by his curates or assistants, who, in labouring in these little oratO' 
ries or chapels of ease, were subject to his control. This was 
laying a foundation for the authority of one bishop or pastor over 
several congregations, which was not long afterwards claimed and 
generally yielded. This proved a third step in the rise of 
prelacy. 

The progress of the church towards prelacy was further aided by 
the practice of convening si/nods and councils. This practice 
began at an early period, and soon became general. The Latins 
styled these larger meetings of the clergy, councils, the Greeks, 
synods ; and the laws which were enacted by these bodies, were 
denominated canons, i. e. rules. " These councils," says Dr. 
Moslieim, " changed the whole face of the church, and gave it a 
" new form." The order and decorum of their business required 
that a president should be appointed. The power lodged in this 
officer scarcely ever failed to be extended and abused. These 
synods were accustomed to meet in the capital cities of the district 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 209 

or province to which the members belonged, and to confer the 
presidency upon the most conspicuous pastor, for the time being, 
of the city in which they met. And thus, by the gradual operation 
of habit, it came to be considered as the right of those persons, and 
of their successors in office. " Hence," says the learned historian 
just quoted, " the rights oi metropolitans derive their origin." The 
order of the church required, at first, the presence of the presiding 
bishops, to give regularity to the acts of synods and councils. In 
a little while their presence was deemed necessary to the validity 
of these acts; and, in the tliird century, it began to be believed that 
without them nothing could be done. Such is the ordinary pro- 
gress of human affairs. The increase of wealth, the decay of piety, 
the corruption of morals, and the prevalence of heresy and conten- 
tion, were all circumstances highly favourable to the progress of 
this change, and concurring, with Jewish prejudices, pagan habits, 
and clerical ambition, hurried on the growing usurpation. 

That the synods and councils which early began to be convened, 
were, in fact, thus employed by the ambitious clergy, to extend 
and confirm their power, might be proved by witnesses almost 
numberless. The testimony of one shall suffice. It is that of the 
great and good bishop, Gregory Nazianzen, who lived in the 
fourth century, and who, on being summoned by the emperor to 
the general council of Constantinople , which met in 381, addressed 
a letter to Procopius, to excuse himself from attending. In this 
letter he declares, " that he was desirous of avoiding all synods, 
'' because he had never seen a good effect, or happy conclusion of any 
" one of them ; that they rather increased than lessened the evils 
" they were designed to prevent; and that the love of contention, 
" and the lust of power, were there manifested in instances innu- 
" merable." Greg. Naz. Oper. torn. I. p. 814. Epist. 55. And, 
afterwards, speakingj)f that very council, this pious father remarks : 
" These conveyers of the Holy Ghost, these preachers of peace to 
" all men, grew bitterly outrageous and clamorous against one 
*' another, in the midst of the church, mutually accusing each other, 
<« leaping about as if they had been mad, under the furious impulse 
" of a lust of power and dominion, as if they would have rent the 
<< whole world in pieces.'^ He afterwards adds, " this was not the 
" effect of piety, but of a contention for thrones.^' Tom. II. 25, 27. 
In short, so great was the disgust of Gregory at the ambitious and 
2 D 



210 LETTER VIII. 

grasping spirit manifested by the clergy of his day, that we find him 
speaking on the subject in the following warm language. " Would 
'* to God there were no prelacy, no pre-eminence of place, no ty- 
" rannical privileges ; and that we might be distinguished by virtue 
" alone. This right and left hand, and this middle place, these 
" higher and lower dignities, and this state-like precedency, have 
*' caused many fruitless contests and bruises, have cast many into 
" the pit, and carried away multitudes to the place of the goats." 
Oper. tom. I. Orat. 28. Would an eminently learned and pious 
bishop have spoken thus, if he had considered prelacy as of divine 
appointment ? Or would he have suffered himself to use this lan- 
guage concerning the prelates of his day, and also concerning their 
predecessors,* if their ambition and usurpations had not been alto- 
gether intolerable. 

In the third century, the title of bishop was seldom applied to 
any other of the presbyters, than the different classes of presidents 
before mentioned. The only shadow which now remained of its 
former use was in the case of the pastors of country parishes, who 
still maintained the parochial episcopacy, under the name of Chore' 
piscopi. The ordaining power, originally vested in all presbyters 
alike, was in the third century seldom exercised by presbyters, 
unless the presiding presbyter, or bishop, was present. About this 
time, the name of presbyter was changed into that ofpriestyin con- 
sequence of the unscriptural and irrational doctrine coming into 
vogue, that the christian ministry was modelled after the Jewish 
priesthood. About this time also the office of ruling elder appears 
to Jiave been laid aside ; and a part of the ministry of the word 
bestowed upon deacons, contrary to the original design of their 
office, which was to superintend the maintenance of the poor. The 
presbytery sunk into the bishops' council. The Synod subserved 
the pretensions of the metropolitan, and there was only wanting a 
general council, and a chief bishop, to complete the hierarchy. 
Both of these the next age compliantly furnished. In the mean 
time, the few humble admirers of primitive parity and simplicity, 
. who dared to remonstrate against these usurpations, were reviled 

* He speaks with nearly equal severity of the unprincipled ambition, 
and shameful conduct of the clergy at the council of Nice, which met 
in 325. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 211 

as promoters of faction and schism, and either thrust out of the 
church, or awed into silence. 

When Constantine came to the imperial throne, in the fourth 
century, he confirmed the usurpation of the bishops by his autho- 
rity, and bestowed upon them a degree of weahh and power to 
which they had before been strangers. He conferred new splen- 
dour on every part of the ecclesiastical system. He fostered every 
thing which had a tendency to convert religion from a spiritual 
service into a gaudy, ostentatious, dazzling rilual; and its minis-^ 
ters into lords over God's heritage, instead of examples to the 
JlocL Old Testament rites, heathen ceremonies, and institutions 
of worldly policy, which had long before begun to enter the church, 
now rushed in like a flood. And what was worse, the great mass 
of the people, as well as of the clergy, were gratified, with the 
change. The Jewish proselyte was pleased to see the resemblance 
which the economy of the Christian church began to bear to the 
ancient temple service. The pagan convert was daily more 
reconciled to a system, which he saw approximating to that which 
he had been long accustomed to behold in the house of his idols. 
And the artful politician could not but admire a hierarchy, so far 
subservient to the interests, and conformed to the model of the 
Roman empire. Constantine assumed to himself the right of call- 
ing general councils, of presiding in them, of determining contro- 
versies, and of fixing the bounds of ecclesiastical provinces. He 
formed the prelatical government afier the imperial model, into 
great prefectures ; in which arrangement, a certain pre-eminence 
was conferred on the bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and 
Constantinople ; ihe first rank being always reserved for the bishop 
of Home, who succeeded in gradually extending his usurpation, 
until he was finally confirmed in it by an imperial decree. 

Though an attempt has been made to trace some of the grada- 
tions by which ministerial imparity arose from small beginnings to 
a settled diocesan episcopacy ; yet, from the very nature of the 
case, the dates of the several steps cannot he precisely ascertained. 
To definite transactions which take place in a single day, or year, 
or which are accomplished in a few years, it is commonly an easy 
task to assign dates. But, in this gradual change, which was 
more than three centuries in accomplishing, no reasonable man 
could expect to find the limits of the several steps precisely 



212 LETTER VIU. 

defined ; because each step was slowly and almost insensibly 
taken ; and more especially, because the practice of all the churches 
was not uniform. There was no particular time when the 
transition from a state of perfect parity, to a fixed and acknow- 
ledged SM^enorz/^/ oyorrfer took place a^ owce, and therefore no 
such time can be assigned. It is evident from the records of 
antiquity that the titles of bishop and presbyter were indiscri- 
minately applied to the same order in some churches, long after a 
distinction had begun to arise in others. It is equally evident, that 
the ordaining power of presbyters was longer retained in the 
more pure and primitive districts of the church, than where wealth, 
ambition, and a worldly spirit, bore greater sway. In some 
churches there were se2.'era/ bishops at the same time; in others, but 
one. In some parts of the Christian world, it was the practice to 
consider and treat all the preaching presbyters in each church as 
colleagues and equals; in others, one of the presbyters was 
regarded as the pastor or bisJiop, and the rest his assistants. A 
few early writers mention ruling elders, but the greater part say 
nothing about them ; simply because this class of officers was not 
found in every congregation, and was early discontinued. Fur- 
ther ; when the practice of choosing one of the presbyters to be 
president or moderator, commenced, it appeared in different 
forms in different churches. In one church, at least, according 
to Jerome, the presiding presbyter was elected by his colleagues 5 
in other churches, according to Hilary, the president came 
to the chair agreeably to a settled principle of rotation. In 
some cases, the presiding presbyter was vested with greater dignity 
and authority ; in others with less. In short, it is evident, that, 
in some portions of the church, a difference of 07'der between 
bishops and presbyters was recognized in the third century ; in 
others, and perhaps generally, in the fourth, but in some others, 
not until the fifth century. No wonder, then, that we find a 
different language used by different fathers on this subject, for 
the practice was different; and this fact directs us to the only 
rational and adequate method of interpreting their different repre- 
sentations. 

Such being the case, what reasonable man would expect to find 
in the records of antiquity, any definite or satisfactory account of 
the rise and progress of prelacy ? If changes equally early and 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 213 

important are covered with still greater darkness ; if the history 
of the first general council that ever met, and which agitated to its 
centre the whole christian church, is so obscure that even the place 
of its meeting is disputed, and no distinct record of its acts has ever 
reached our times ; what might be expected concerning an eccle- 
siastical innovation, so remote in its origin, so gradual in its pro- 
gress, so indefinitely diversified in the shapes in which it appeared 
in diflferent places at the same time, and so unsusceptible of precise 
and lucid exhibition ? To this question, no discerning and candid 
mind will be at a loss for an answer. No 5 the whole of that 
reasoning, which confidently deduces the apostolical origin of 
prelacy, from its acknowledged and general, but by no means 
universal, prevalence in the fourth century, is mere empty decla- 
mation, as contradictory to every principle of human nature, as it 
is to the whole current of early history. 



( 214 ) 



LETTER IX. 



PRACTICAL INFLUENCE OF PRELACY— UNINTERRUPTED SUCCESSION- 
RECAPITULATION— CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

The practical influence of any doctrine, has been generally 
considered as a good test of its truth. By their fruits ye shall 
know them, is a rule which applies to principles as well as to men. 
Let us apply this rule to the case before us. If prelacy be of 
exclusive and unalterable divine right : If it be so essential, that 
there is no true church, no authorized ministry, no valid ordinances 
without it : If episcopal churches alone are in covenant with Christ, 
in the appointed road to heaven, and warranted to hope in the 
promises of God ; then we may reasonably expect and demand 
that all churches of this denomination, should display more of the 
spirit of Christ than any other classes of professing christians. The 
blessing of God is, beyond all question, most likely to attend those 
institutions which are most agreeable to his will. But we may go 
further. All who believe the Bible will acknowledge that there is 
more religion in the church, than out of it 5 more of the image and 
love of the Redeemer among his covenanted people, than among 
those who are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and 
strangers to the covenant of 'promise. To deny this, would be to 
call in question every promise which the King of Zion has made 
to his people, and every advantage of union with him as their head. 
Now if all non-episcopal societies are to be considered as mere 
uncommanded associations, which have nothing to do with the 
church of Christ ; and, if union with that church is a privilege 
which belongs to Episcopalians alone ; then those who believe this 



PRACTICAL INFLUENCE OF PRELACY. 215 

doctrine, are bound, on every christian principle, to show, that 
episcopal churches contain within their bosora more pure and un- 
defiled religion, more harmony, more love for the truth as it is in 
Jesus, more universal holiness of heart and of life, than any, or 
than all other religious denominations. But is this in fact the case ? 
Will the friends of prelacy undertake to show, that they alone give 
this evidence that they belong to Christ? Will they even under- 
take to show, that Episcopalians exhibit in a pre-eminent degree, 
this practical testimony, that they are the chosen generation^ the 
peculiar people, who are purified by the blood, and quickened by 
the spirit of the Redeemer ? 

The efficacy of episcopal government in securing the unity of 
the church, in guarding against schism, and in promoting harmony 
and peace, has been much celebrated. But is there such a peculiar 
and benign efficacy in that form of ecclesiastical order? 1 am 
willing to refer the decision of this question to any man who is 
acquainted with ecclesiastical history. If we consult Eusebius, he 
will present us with a picture of the violence, the strife, and the 
divisions among bishops, and among different portions of the church, 
through their means, which is enough to make a christian weep. 
If we consult Gregory Nazianzen, he will tell us, in language 
before quoted, that prelacy " has caused many fruitless conflicts and 
" bruises, has cast many into the pit, and carried away multitudes 
"to the place of the goats." If we examine the history of any 
episcopal church on earth, we shall find it exhibiting, to say the 
least, as large a share of heresy, contention, and schism, as any 
which bears the Presbyterian form; and, what is more, we shall 
ever find the prelates themselves quite as forward as any others, 
in scenes of violence and outrage. The episcopal professor 
Whitaker, had no high opinion of the benign effects of prelacy, 
when he declared, that if this form of government were introduced 
as a remedy against schism, " the remedy was worse than the 
" disease." " The first express attempt," says the learned Dr. 
Owen, " to corrupt and divide a church, made from within itself, 
" was that in the church oi Jerusalem, made by Thebulis, because 
" Simon Cleopas was chosen bishop, and he was refused. The 
" same rise had the schisms of the Novations and Donatists, the 
" heresies of ^n'Ms and others." In short, the animosities and 
" divisions in the church of Christ, which have taken their rise 



216 LETTER IX. 

from the contending interests, the lawless ambition, and the inde- 
cent strife of diocesan bishops, are so numerous, that history is full 
of them ; and so disgusting to every mind imbued with the spirit 
of Christianity, that it would give pain even to an opponent to 
dwell upon the subject. But further ; do we not all know episco- 
pal churches, at the present day, in which all varieties of theological 
creeds are received, from the purest orthodoxy, down to the most 
blasphemous heresies, and that by all ranks of their clergy, as well 
as their lay members. Is this that uiiity of the spirit of which the 
Scriptures speak ? Is this that uniti/ which constitutes men one 
body in Christ, and which will prepare them for the more subUme 
and perfect union of the church triumphant above? 

Again ; if the episcopal church alone is in communion with 
Christ; if she possesses the only authorized ministry, and the only 
valid ordinances; then we have a right to expect that she will pre- 
eminently display the purifying effects of these peculiar privileges. 
For if the christian ministry and ordinances were given to edify 
the body of Christ, and are the great instruments which God does, 
in fact, employ for this purpose, as both Presbyterians aud Epis- 
copalians concur in believing; then we must suppose that more, 
much more, of their sacred influence will appear among those who 
possess these precious gifts, than among those who possess them 
not. To suppose that an invalid ministry and ordinances will be, 
in general, as useful in their effects, as those which are valid, is to 
surrender one of the most important distinctions between truth and 
error. 

Do we, then, actually find in episcopal churches more real and 
vital religion, than in other churches ? Do we actually find among 
them more of the image of Christ; more attachment to evangelical 
truth ; more faithful preaching of Jesus Christ, and him crucified; 
more brotherly love ; more pure and holy living ; more care to 
avoid a sinful conformity to the world ; more vigorous and scrip- 
tural discipline ; more zeal for the divine glory ; and a temper and 
conversation more suited to adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour, 
than in the mass of non-episcopal churches ? In short, are episco- 
palians, as a denomination, more serious, devout, self-denied, 
benevolent, meek, forgiving, and heavenly-minded, than Presby- 
terians, as a denomination ? Perhaps it will be said, that much 
of what we call vital religion, is xdXhev superstitious, and that with 



PRACTICAL INFLUENCE OF PRELACY. 217 

respect to true and rational piety, there is full as much, if not 
more, in episcopal than in other churches. On this question I will 
not dwell long. By real religion^ I mean a conformity of temper 
and practice with that system of evangelical truth which is exhibit- 
ed in the writings, and which adorned the lives of bishop Jeioel, 
bishop Hall^ bishop Davenant, archbishop Usher^ and many other 
illustrious prelates of the church of England^ of former ages ; that 
system which has been since defended and exemplified by the 
Herveys, the RomaineSj the Newtons, the »Sco;^s, and a multitude 
more of unmitred divines of the same church, in later times ; that 
evangelical system which is embodied in the articles of that church, 
and which breathes in the greatest part of her liturgy and offices ; 
that system which exalts the divine Redeemer to the throne; which 
places the penitent sinner in the dust, at his footstool ; which teaches 
men to rely solely on the atoning sacrifice and perfect righteous- 
ness of the Saviour, for pardon and life; and which, at the same 
lime, prompts them lo follow holiness, and to be zealous of good 
works. Is there more of this kind of religion in episcopal churches 
than in any others ? I cannot suppose that there is a single 
Episcopalian in our country, either so ill informed or so prejudiced, 
as to believe, for a moment, that his own church is in the least 
degree superior, in any of these respects, to her Presbyterian 
neighbours. 

But, perhaps, this reasoning will be objected to by our episcopal 
brethren. They will tell us, that there is often a wide difllerence 
between entertaining correct opinions, and pursuing a suitable prac- 
tice ; that men may and do hold the truth in unrighteousness ; 
and, that the same reasoning, if admitted, would prove that no form 
of religion is true, because in every church we may find many 
lukewarm and immoral professors. This objection, however, is 
nothing to the purpose. It is merely an evasion of the argument. 
We all daily make and allow the distinction between principles, 
and the conduct of those who profess them. The former are often 
excellent^ while the latter is hase. We protest, and with the strong- 
est reason, against the conclusion, that religion is false, because 
some men who profess to believe it are immoral ; or that a particu- 
lar church is not a true church of Christ, because many of her mem- 
bers act in a manner unworthy of their profession. But our rea- 
soning and conclusion, in this case, are wholly of a different kind. 
2 E 



218 LETTER IX. 

We only contend, that the ministry and the ordinances of religion, 
which claim to be exclusively valid, ought to prove themselves 
more efficacious than those which are destitute of validity. We 
contend that there is, and must ever be, more virtue and holiness 
in the church of Christ, than out of it. We contend, in short, that 
in that household of God, to which his gracious promises, and his 
life-giving Spirit are vouchsafed, while we shall always find much 
corruption, we must expect to find, in general, much more of the 
life and power of religion ; moi^e fervent piety, more zeal for the 
interests of the Redeemer's kingdom, and more righteousness of 
life, than among those who have no connexion with that household. 
If not, wherein is the greater advantage of being in the church, than 
in the world ? Nor do we, by taking this ground, furnish either an 
infidel or an heretic with a handle against us. An enemy of the 
gospel may come into all of our churches, and point to some, per- 
haps to many, of our members, who do not by any means walk M?or- 
ihy of the vocation ivherewiih they are called. Would he have a 
right from this fact, to infer the falsity of our system of faith ? No ; 
the obvious distinction h^iwGGn principles and the conduct of those 
who profess them, would, if he were a candid man, prevent him 
from drawing this inference. But if an infidel could come into our 
solemn assemblies, even the purest of them, and not only assert, 
but prove, that there is no more either of strict morality or fervent 
piety, among the professors of religion, than among its despisers ; 
if he could do this, then indeed he might, and ought, to triumph 
over us. As long as he could only with truth say, ^^ Some of you 
" Christians are as bad as infidels j" I would confidently- reply, 
" They are not Christians but hypocrites ; for, if they had any 
portion of the spirit of their Master, they would not act thus." 
But if he could really make it appear that Christians are in gene- 
ral, and as a body, in no respect better than infidels, he would cer- 
tainly establish his argument. This, however, blessed be God! 
the infidel cannot do; and the very circumstance of the enemies of 
Christianity marking with such eager triumph, every case of unwor- 
thy conduct in the professors of religion, shows that, in their opin- 
ion, christian principles require more holiness than infidel principles 
require, and are expected to produce more. The same reasoning 
we adopt with our episcopal brethren. We do not ask them to 
produce perfection in their church j we do not ask them to show, 



UNINTERRUPTED SUCCESSION. 219 

that alt their members act conformably with their principles ; but 
weinsistupon their showing that there is, in general, a much larger 
portion of fervent piety, and of strict morality, in their church, 
than in any of the non-episcopal churches ; and until they do this, 
every unprejudiced man will consider their claim of being alone 
" in covenant with Christ," as unreasonable as it is unscriptural. 

It does not affect the solidity of this argument, that some churches 
which Presbyterians consider as not regularly organized, upon 
scriptural principles, nevertheless embrace in their bosom a large 
portion of unaffected piety. If we undertook to maintain that the 
Presbyterian church is the only real church on earth, and alone in 
covenant with Christ the head, such a fact would, indeed, present 
a difficulty of no easy solution. But we make no such arrogant 
claim. Wherever the unfeigned love of our divine Saviour, an 
humble reliance on his atoning sacrifice, and a corresponding holi- 
ness of life, pervade any denomination of Christians, we hail them 
as brethren in Christ 5 we acknowledge them to be a true churchy 
and although we may observe and lament imperfections in their 
outward government, we consider them as truly in covenant with 
the King of Zion, as ourselves. All this is perfectly consistent with 
believing, as we do, that Presbyterian church government was the 
primitive model, and that it is the duty o{ e^iGvy church to conform 
to this model. It is certainly the duty of every man to keep the 
whole law of God; yet as we do not deny that an individual professor 
is a real Christian, because we perceive some imperfections in his 
character ; so neither do we deny a church to be a true church of 
Christ, because she is not in all respects conformed to our ideas of 
scriptural purity. We consider our episcopal brethren as having 
wandered far from the simplicity of apostolic order. But what then ? 
Must we arrogantly unchurch them on that account ? By no means. 
We lament their deviation ; but notwithstanding this, can freely 
embrace them as members of the church universal ; and were 
there no other church with which we could commune, should feel 
no scruple in holding communion with them as brethren. 

Those who contend for the divine right of diocesan episcopacy, 
and for the doctrine of uninterrupted succession, in its most rigid 
form, often ask us, how we deduce our succession in the ministry ? 
They profess to be able to trace their own line of ecclesiastical 



220 LETTER IX. 

descent, with the utmost ease ; and gravely present us with long 
catalogues of bishops, from the Apostles down to the present day. 
Having done this, they demand from us similar catalogues, and a 
similar deduction. I shall not attempt at present to discuss the 
questions, whether such succession is essential to the christian 
ministry ; and, whether, supposing it to be so, it can be distinctly 
traced through the medium of regular historical documents, from 
the apostolic age to the present. On both these questions the most 
learned and pious episcopal divines have been divided in opinion. 
Chillingworih^ Barrow, Bishop Hoadley, and a number more, 
have taken the negative side ; pronouncing the claim of succession 
to be as futile as it is unnecessary ; and assailing it with the most 
pointed ridicule, as well as with formidable arguments. 

But without entering into this controversy, I will take for grant- 
ed, that the uninterrupted succession, is essential ; that it is the 
only channel through which ministers of the present day can have 
the apostolic commission transmitted to them. Supposing this to 
be the case, nothing is more easy, than to show, on presbyterian 
principles, that the succession in our church is as distinct, regular, 
and unbroken, as that of the episcopal church. 

From the time of the Apostles to the aera of the reformation, our 
line of succession is certainly as good as theirs, for they are one 
and the same. When the reformers began their work, they found 
all the churches of Great Britain under episcopal government. 
Until that lime, therefore, our opponents themselves being judges, 
a regular line of ordination had been preserved. If there be any 
doubt of this, it is a doubt which as much affects their succession 
as our own. In short, until this period, the two lines coincide, 
share the same fortunes, and are to be traced by the same means. 
When the reformation began, and the popish doctrine of imparity 
was discarded by a considerable portion of the Christians of Britain, 
the presbyterSj who had been ordained by the bishops, undertook 
themselves to ordain in their turn ; and from them it is as easy to 
trace the succession i?i the line of presbyters, as it is for our epis- 
copal brethren to trace it in the line of diocesan bishops. Now if, 
as we have proved in the foregoing letters, the right of ordination, 
according to scripture knd primitive usage, belongs to presbyters, 
it is evident that the succession through them, is as valid as any 
other : or rather, to speak more properly, it is only so far as any 



RECAPITULATION. 221 

succession flows through the line oi presbyters, that it is either regu- 
lar or valid. It is the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, 
that constitutes a scriptural ordination ; and it is because episcopal 
bishops are presbyters, and assisted in all ordinations by other 
presbyters, that we consider their ordaining acts, on the principles 
of scripture and primitive usage, as valid. 

I have now presented, within as narrow limits as possible, a 
sketch of the arguments, by which we support our doctrine of the 
christian ministry. Much reasoning, and much testimony which 
would have served to strengthen our argument, have been neces- 
sarily omitted. But enough has been produced to establish the 
apostolic and primitive character of our church. 

You have seen, that the scriptures contain but one commission 
for the gospel ministry; that bishop and presbyter are uniformly 
used in the New Testament as convertible titles for the same office ; 
that the same character and powers, are also in the sacred writings 
ascribed interchangeably to bishops and presbyters, thus plainly 
establishing their indentity of order as well as of name ; and that 
the christian church was organized by the apostles, after the model 
of the Jewish synagogue, which was undoubtedly Presbyterian in 
its form. 

You have seen that all arguments which our episcopal brethern 
profess to derive from scripture in favour of their system, are per- 
fectly nugatory, and do not yield it the least solid support. 

You have seen that the fathers of the first two centuries are so 
far from furnishing a single passage which gives even a semblance 
of aid to the episcopal cause, that, like the scriptures, they every 
where speak a language wholly inconsistent with it, and favourable 
only to the doctrine of ministerial parity. 

You have seen that the great body of the reformers and other 
witnesses for the truth, of different ages and nations, with one voice 
maintained the same doctrine, as taught in scripture, and in the 
primitive church ; and that even the most conspicuous English 
reformers, while they assisted in organizing an episcopal establish- 
ment in their own country, defended it on the ground of human 
expediency, and the will of the magistrate, rather than that of 
divine right. 

You have seen that the church of England, and those churches 



222 LETTER IX. 

which have immediately descended from her, stand absolutely 
ALONE, IN THE WHOLE PROTESTANT WORLD, in representing bishops 
as an order of clergy superior to presbi/ters ; all other protest- 
ants, even those who adopt a sort of prelacy, having pronounced it 
to be a mere human invention. 

You have seen some of the most learned and pious bishops and 
other divines of the church of England, utterly disclaiming the 
divine right of diocesan episcopacy ; and declaring that they con- 
sidered a great majority of the clergy of that church, in later as 
well as earlier times, as of the same opinion with themselves. 

Finally; you have seen that the gradual int7'oduction of prelacy, 
within the first four centuries, was not only practicable, but one 
of the most natural and probable of all events ; and that the most 
competent judges, and profound inquirers into early history, have 
pronounced that it actually took place. 

After the exhibition of testimony so various, abundant, and 
explicit, I cannot suppose, my brethren, that any of you can have 
a remaining doubt. This testimony not only establishes, in the 
most perfect manner, the validity of the ordinations and the mi- 
nistry of our church ; but it goes further, and proves that they are 
superior to those of our episcopal neighbours; more scriptural, 
more conformable to primitive usage, and possessing more of that 
whole character which is fitted to satisfy an humble, simple-hearted, 
Bible Christian. Be not moved^ therefore, when the zealous advo- 
cates for the divine right of diocesan episcopacy charge you with 
schism, for being out of the communion of their church, and 
denounce your ministry and ordinances as invalid. After reading 
the foregoing sheets, I trust you will be prepared to receive such 
charges and such denunciations, with the same calm, dispassionate, 
conscious superiority, that you feel when a parlizan of the papacy 
denounces you for rejecting the supremacy of the pope, and ques- 
tions the possibility of your salvation out of the church of Rome. 
No, brethren, be not alarmed ! there is nothing in their claims to 
intimidate the most tender conscience ; nothing to excite a scruple 
in the most cautious mind. Let them exhibit, and assert, and 
reiterate their exclusive pretensions, with all the confidence of zeal 
and with all the heat of disputation. Let none of these things 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 223 

move you. You are already in the bosom of a church as nearly 
conformed to apostolic order as any on earth. If the testimony of 
Scripture ; if the writings of the fathers, in the earliest and purest 
ages of the church ; if the weight of numbers, of piety, and of learn- 
ing, throughout the protestant world, be of any value, they are 
clearly on our side. Every successive step that I take in this 
inquiry, impresses on my mind a deeper conviction of the truth o^f 
ray principles, and of rny obligation to bless God for casting my 
lot in the Presbyterian church. 

But, brethren, while you feel this confidence, let me warn you 
against being partakers with our opponents in the positiveness and 
bigotry which some of them manifest. I feel much satisfaction in 
knowing that you generally cherish the most liberal sentiments 
towards all denominations of Christians ; that you are disposed to 
embrace as brethren all who give evidence that they love the Lord 
Jesus Christ in sincerity, however they may differ from you in 
forms of worship, or in modes of external order. Cultivate to a 
still higher degree this disposition, so ornamental to your character 
as Christians, and as members of civil society. Let no provocation 
on the part of others induce you to abandon it. Remember that 
you are not yet free from a criminal bigotry, if you have not learn- 
ed to hear with bigots. It is a difficult lesson ; but we are required 
to learn it. You will not consider me as framing an apology for 
error, or as exhorting you to look upon it with approbation. It 
is your duty to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to 
the saints. But " let us not," to use the language oC the amiable 
Ganganelli — a language more honourable to him than the triple 
crown — " Let us not lay aside charity to maintain yaz7/i." This is 
never necessary ; and when it is done, is always the effect of that 
unhallowed fire in which our Lord has declared he has no 
pleasure. 

Even if our episcopal brethren were unanimous in maintaining 
and urging the unscriptural claim which has been refuted, we 
ought to dismiss ail bitterness and resentment, and as much as 
possible, to cherish towards them a spirit of conciliation and 
respect. But my firm persuasion is, as expressed in a former letter, 
thatscarcely a <MJen<ie<Apartofthat sect of Christians in the United 
States, are disposed either to advance or concur in such a claim ^ 



224 LETTER IX. 

It is the delusion of a few only ; a delusion which I have good 
reason to believe is rejected and reprobated, by the great body of 
the clergy, as well as the laity of that communion. Let me, then, 
guard you againt theinjusticeof charging on a whole denomination 
the odium of such opinions. Impute them to none but those who 
fasten the charge on themselves, by an open avowal. Convince 
Episcopalians, by the liberality and candour of your deportment, 
that you have no prejudices against them as a church. And even 
convince those who embraceevery opportunity of denouncing your 
ministry and ordinances, that you cannot be overcome of evil j bat 
that you know how to overcome evil with good. 

Numerous are the considerations which press upon us the duty of 
cultivating peace and love with all denominations of professing 
Christians. A bold and impious infidelity abounds. We are 
surrounded with thousands who not only neglect but despise all 
religion. How will it rejoice the hearts of these enemies of our 
common faith, to see those who profess to be followers of the same 
Master, to be animated by the same spirit of love, and to be can- 
didates for the same heaven, either avoiding the society of each 
other, or coming together only to deal in reciprocal reproaches and 
anathemas. Be it your study, brethren, whatever others may do 
to give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 
Let it be apparent to all, that you cherish no dispositions, advance 
no claims, employ no language, which can reasonably disturb the 
harmony of your intercourse with other Christians. Let it be seen 
that you knox^.how to esteem those who differ from you, as well as 
to contend for the truth ; and to cover with the mantle of charity, 
that which you cannot approve. There is a charm in this conduct, 
which even infidelity itself cannot resist. It will do more than a 
thousand carnal weapons to put to silence the ignorance of foolish 
men, and to " extort a trembling homage" from those who know 
not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

The present perturbed state of the world, is another motive to 
peace and love among Christians. The struggles of ambition, 
grasping and devouring every thing within its reach ; the desola- 
tions of war, widely spread, and murderous beyond former exam- 
ple ; and the prevalence of those selfish and ferocious passions 
which fill the earth with animosity, hatred, violence, and destruc- 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 225 

tion, all concur, with infidelity, to call the minds of men away from 
the truth, and to prevent them from listening to the benign and 
heavenly voice of religion. Nor is this all. A consideration still 
more solemn presses itself upon the serious mind. Providence has 
cast our lot in those latter daijSy which are pre-eminently charac- 
terised in Scripture as pen7o7/s times. Trials are coming on the 
church, which, were not her king in the midst of her, would appal 
the stoutest heart. Is this a time for the followers of Christ to be 
divided ? Is this a time for them to fall out by the way, and to bite 
and devour one another ? Alas ! no. Under these circumstances, 
how solemn is the call to union and love ! In this situation, how 
obvious is the duty of all who believe the gospel, to unite in 
exhibiting our common Christianity to mankind in her meekest, 
loveliest, and most attractive form ! How honourable might not such 
an example be to religion! how ornamental to the church ! how 
confortable to ourselves ! how useful to our troubled world ! 

The equal rights and privileges enjoyed in this country, by all 
sects of Christians, impose on them an additional obligation to live 
together in harmony and peace. Our civil government makes 
no discrimination among churches. In this respect, we all stand 
upon a level, and are permitted to worship God according to the 
dictates of our own consciences, having none to molest or to make 
us afraid. Under these happy circumstances, what temptation is 
there to cultivate a spirit of bigotry or contention ? Why can we 
not quietly and meekly enjoy our privileges together ? Let us prove 
to the world, that there is something in the spirit of Christianity 
which enables those who possess it to differ from each other with 
more mildness, urbanity, and genuine benevolence, than the 
wrangling politicians around us 

Finally, Christian brethren, remember that the period is hasten- 
ing on, when all the real followers of Christ shall meet in a more 
harmonious and a more happy world. Oceans now roll between 
them 5 mountains and deserts keep them asunder ; and differences 
of opinion and denomination, often more inhospitable than the most 
dreary desert, place at a distance from each other those for whom 
Christ died. But in that blessed and holy society which you are 
speedily to join ; in that glorified multitude which no man can 
number, gathered out of all nations, and kindreds, and ^people, 
and tongues, these differences will be for ever unknown. There 
2 F 



226 LETTER IX. 

perfect holiness and perfect love shall reign undisturbed and eter- 
nal. Let this happy prospect fill you with the tenderest love to 
all who bear the image of Christ ; let it comfort you amidst the 
contentions and divisions of the present imperfect state ; and let it 
excite you daily to cherish those dispositions which will form the best 
preparation for that kingdom where all christians shall appear to 
each other, what they are in fact, one body in Christy and every 
one members one of another. 



END OF PART L 



LETTERS 



COKCEfiNINO 



THE CONSTITUTION AND ORDER 



"smm ^mmm^imm mumm^m'^^ 



BY SAMUEL MILLER, D. D. 



PART II. 



LETTERS 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 



LETTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 



CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

It is more than two years since I addressed you in a series of 
" Letters on the Constitution and Order of the Christian Ministry, 
" as deduced from Scripture and Primitive Usage." The resolu- 
tion to call your attention to that subject was reluctantly formed, 
after much deliberation, and in compliance with what appeared to 
me an evident and imperious demand of duty. A love of contro- 
versy makes no part of my character. Neither my taste nor my 
talents are by any means suited to the field of contention. But 
when a minister of the gospel perceives any thing which is likely 
to have an unfriendly influence on the church of Christ, to which 
he has solemnly devoted himself, every consideration of faithfulness 
forbids him to be idle. Such influence I saw, or thought I saw, 
was likely to result from certain publications, and other efforts, 
which had been made by some respectable individuals among our 
episcopal brethren, in this city, and in different parts of the state, 
for several years preceding. The nature and tendency of these 
efforts are well understood by many of you, but they ought to be 
understood by all. 

For more than twenty years after the establishment of American 
Independence, the Presbyterians of New York dwelt in peace and 
harmony with their episcopal neighbours. They well recollected, 
indeed, the long course of oppressions and provocations which they 



230 LETTER I. 

had suflfered, by means of episcopal influence, prior to the revolu- 
tion. They recollected that, for more than half a century, besides 
supporting their own churches, they had been forced to contribute to 
the support of the episcopal church, already enriched and strength- 
ened by governmental aid. They recollected in how many 
instances the fairest and most laudable exertions to promote the 
interest of their denomination, were opposed, thwarted, and frus- 
trated, by the direct interference of the same favoured sect. But 
when our national independence and equal rights became estab- 
lished 5 when all denominations of Christians were placed on the 
same footing, with respect to the state, and left to enjoy their privi- 
leges together, the Presbyterians were disposed to forget every 
injury 5 to cover every former subject of uneasiness with the mantle 
of charity ; to dwell in equal concord and love with their brethren 
of every name. It was not supposed, indeed, during this period of 
tranquillity, that Presbyterians and Episcopalians were agreed in 
their lews either of evangelical truth, or of ecclesiasticalorder ; or 
that they considered all the points in which they differed as of 
small importance. But while both thought for themselves, and 
pursued their own views of doctrine and worship, they avoided an 
unnecessary, and especially, an irritating and offensive obtrusion 
of their points of difference ; and, above all, never seem to have 
thought, on either side, of that system of proscription and attack, 
which our episcopal brethren have since chosen to commence. 

The formal and open commencement of this system may be 
dated in the year 1804. Previous to that period, indeed, several 
sermons, and other fugitive pamphlets, had evinced a disposition on 
the part of some individuals, to revive and urge certain claims, as 
unfounded in scripture as they are offensive to liberal minds. But 
in that year there appeared, in the city of New York, the first of a 
series of larger publications, which evidently had for their object a 
system of more bold and decisive proscription than had been ven- 
tured upon for a considerable time before. These publications, 
among other doctrines, were professedly intended to maintain and 
disseminate the following, viz. " That the power of ordination to 
" the christian ministry is, by divine appointment, vested exclusive- 
" ly in diocesan bishops ; that where these bishops are wanting, 
" there is no authorized ministry, no true church, no valid ordi- 
" nances ; that, of course, the Presbyterian, and all other non-epis- 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 231 

" copal churches, and ministers, are not only unauthorized, and 
" perfectly destitute of validity, but are to be viewed as institutions 
" founded in rebellion and schism ; and that all who are in com- 
" niunion with such non-episcopal churches, are aliens from Christ,'* 
" out of the appointed road to heaven," have no interest in the 
promises of God, and no hope but in his " uncovenanted mercy," 
" which may be extended to them, in common with the serious and 
<* conscientious heathen." Books containing doctrines of this kind, 
had been published and sent abroad with much assiduity, for more 
than a year, before any Presbyterian came forward to refute them, 
or to vindicate primitive simplicity and order ; and since that time, 
similar books have been printed, re-printed, new modelled, and 
circulated, especially in the city and state of New York, with a 
degree of zeal and perseverance altogether new and extraordinary. 

Nor is this all. These books have been put into the hands of 
non-episcopalians. Presbyterians have been personally addressed 
on the subject, and attempts made to seduce them from their church, 
on the express allegation that they were totally destitute of an 
authorized ministry, and of valid ordinances. And, that nothing 
might be wanting to fix the character and purpose of these measures, 
they were accompanied with declarations, that a state of warfare 
with the Presbyterian church, on the subject of episcopacy, was 
earnestly wished for, and considered as one of the most probable 
means of promoting the episcopal cause. 

It was not possible for one denomination of christians to act in 
a more inoffensive manner towards another, than we had uniformly 
done towards our episcopal brethren. We had never attempted 
to unchurch them. We had never, directly or indirectly, called 
in question the validity of their ministrations or ordinances. We 
had never, on any occasion, obtruded our particular views of 
church order, as essential either to the being or prosperity of the 
body of Christ. On the contrary, whenever we had occasion, 
from the pulpit or the press, to instruct our people on those points 
in which we differ from Episcopalians, it was always done in a 
manner respectful and conciliatory, and perfectly consistent with 
acknowledging them as a sister church ; a sister, by no means, in- 
deed, in our estimation, free from error; but yet sufficiently near the 
primitive model to be' regarded as a church of Christ, All this, 



233 LETTER L 

however, did not secure us from the treatment of which you have 
heard. 

Under these circumstances, when we were virtually denounced 
and excommunicated ; when the name of a christian church was 
denied us ; when our people were warned to abandon the ministry 
of their pastors, under the penalty of being regarded as rebels and 
schismatics both by God and man ; when more than insinuations 
of this kind were presented and reiterated, from the pulpit and the 
press, on every practicable occasion, and in almost every possible 
variety of form ; when, by the frequency and the confidence with 
which they were brought forward, some in our communion were 
perplexed, others, more discerning and better informed, rendered 
indignant, and all appeared to feel the propriety of vindicating the 
abused ordinances of Christ ; it became at least excusable to say 
something in our own defence. It was no bitterness against our 
episcopal brethren ; no love of controversy ; no restless ambition ; 
no desire to intrude into another denomination for the purpose of 
making proselytes, that dictated an attempt to justify our prin- 
ciples. The attempt was purely defensive, and was demanded by 
every consideration of duty to the souls of men, and of fidelity to 
our Master in heaven. 

Impressed with this conviction, I addressed to you my Letters 
on the Christian Ministry, Such a manual appeared to me to be 
much wanted ; a manual which was intended to present a concise 
view of the whole subject, without the useless appendages, and the 
offensive recriminations which have been too frequently admitted. 
In composing this work, it was my sincere aim to render it as free 
from every thing personal or irritating as possible. Accordingly 
I attacked no particular writer. I avoided even mentioning the 
name of any American who had written in opposition to that 
apostolic truth and order which we maintain. My arguments 
were stated, as far as the nature of the undertaking admitted, in 
the abstract ; and a studious care was exercised to exhibit the 
whole in language of the most mild and conciliatory character. In 
all this it was not supposed that offence could reasonably be taken 
by any, and least of all by our episcopal brethren. As they had 
been in the habit, for several years before the appearance of my 
volume, of publishing, and distributing, even beyond the bounds of 
their own society, books, in which the episcopal doctrine was 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 233 

warmly urged, and Presbyterian principles loaded with opprobri- 
ous epithets ; it was supposed that they would scarcely think it 
very consistent or decent to attack with violence, if at all, a pub- 
lication so moderate, so respectful, and so exclusively intended for 
Presbyterians. It was, therefore, my prevailing ex|)ectatlon, that 
the work would be considered as not belonging to the polemic class 
and would be suffered to pass without a reply. 

But in this I was mistaken. With all the mildness and inoffen- 
siveness of their character, my letters no sooner made their 
appearance, than murmurs of resentment, and threats of over- 
whelming refutation were heard from various quarters. These 
threats had not been long proclaimed, before attempts were made 
to fulfil them. The first who presented himself before the public, 
as an assailant, was Mr. Thomas Y. Hoio (since the Rev. Mr. 
How, o( New York,) who, in about six months after the publication 
of my volume, produced an angry and vehement pamphlet, which 
he announced as introductory to a more full discussion of the sub- 
ject. Mr. How, after an interval of six months more, was followed 
by the Rev. Dr. Bowden, Professor of Moral Philosophy, Logic, 
and Belles Lettres in Columbia College. This gentleman, who 
had been long versed in the episcopal controversy, and who, more 
than twenty years ago, stepped forth as a champion of the hierarchy, 
did me the honour again to take the field against me, and under- 
took in a work, at least formidable in size, to give a complete 
refutation of all my arguments, and to prostrate the Presbyterian 
cause. About the same lime with Dr. Bowden^s two volumes, 
there appeared, on the same side, and with the same object, the 
first of a series of letters addressed to me by the Rev. Dr. Kemp, 
Rector of Great Choptanh, in Maryland. And, finally, with this 
number, the Rev. Dr. Hohart has united himself, as an occasional 
remarker on my letters, in the Churchman^s Magazine, published 
in the city of New York, for the contents of which he acknowledges 
himself, both as editor and proprietor, to be responsible. 

To be fallen upon by so many assailants, and with so much 
vehemence, is a compliment as great as it was unexpected. My 
thanks are due to these gentlemen for conferring on my work a 
degree of importance, and unwittingly disclosing that it has made 
a degree of impression, which I had never ventured to anticipate 
or to claim. I have also to thank them for another favour. Their 
2 G 



234 LETTER 1. 

violent attacks, and their numerous cavils, have induced me to 
examine the subject with more care, and to pursue ray inquiries 
respecting it to a greater extent than [ should probably otherwise 
have done. The result is, a deeper conviction than ever of the 
weakness of their cause, and of the apostolic character of our 
church. 

With respect to Mr. How^s pamphlet, it is written with so much 
heat and impetuosity 5 discovers such a singular want of acquaint- 
ance with radical parts of the subject 5 and breathes a spirit so 
evidently calculated, with all sober and impartial readers, to dis- 
credit the author himself, more than the object of his attack ; that 
my first resolution, as well as the general advice of my friends, was 
to let it pass unnoticed. I could scarcely, indeed, form a more 
selfish wish than that all my opponents might write thus. And it 
is certain that Mr. How would never have received a syllable of 
public reply from me, had there been any reason to suppose that 
his work would fall into the hands of none but the discerning and 
well-informed. Recollecting, however, that all readers are not 
qualified to distinguish between assertion and proof, between lofty 
assumption and solid argument, I felt doubtful whether some 
remarks might not be usefully made, especially on some of the 
more extraordinary and exceptionable parts of his book. The 
appearance of Dr. Bowden^s work terminated my doubts. This 
work, written in a style of more calmness, and rather more decorum 
than Mr. How's; more respectable on the score of sober and grave 
reasoning; and discovering more acquaintance with the subject, 
appeared to me entitled to some reply. In making this reply, I 
determined to bring into one view, the most material allegations 
and reasonings of all the gentlemen who have honoured me with 
their notice ; and, as they have taken care to praise and quote each 
other, they cannot be displeased at being associated together in ray 
reraarks. 

And in the first place, my acknowledgments are due to these 
gentlemen, and particularly to Mr. How, for being so kind as to 
remove all uncertainty with respect to the real nature of the opi- 
nions, which they hold. Dr. Bowden, it is true, does not appear 
very fond of committing himself by explicit avowals ; but Mr. How 
manifests no scruple in declaring, in his usual " masterly" manner, 
that he considers Presbyterian clergymen as having no more right 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 235 

to administer sacraments, or to ordain, than so many " laymen or 
irr)we«;" that all their ministrations are perfectly unauthorised 
and void ; that without episcopal ordination, there is no ministry, 
no church ; that no case oi necessity, however extreme, can justify 
any minister or body of ministers, in attempting to ordain others, 
or to form churches, without the intervention of a prelate's hands ; 
and that all who are not in communion with an episcopal bishop 
^ve out of the church, diViA have no covenanted i\X\e to salvation. 
Letters, p. 16. 68, and elsewhere. Mr. How also lets us know 
that Dr, Bowden holds similar opinions, p. 68.; and truly the 
doctor himself repeatedly uses language which admits of no other 
construction. It is agreeable to find opponents thus candid and 
explicit. We now know the nature of the claim which these gen- 
tlemen advance, and of course, how to meet them. I am happy 
also to perceive, that in my former publication, I have neither mis- 
represented nor exaggerated their sentiments. They are precisely 
such as I ascribed to the third, or highest-toned class of Episcopa- 
lians. It is to the claims of this class only, and not to the mode- 
rate and liberal part of that denomination, that the reasonings in the 
following sheets are intended to apply. 

But while these gentlemen are very undisguised and decided in 
advancing their claims, they write in a manner strangely vague and 
obscure on another point. Even admitting, (what we cannot admit, 
for we know the contrary,) that the question whether episcopacy 
was in fact, the primitive constitution of the church, were decided 
in favour of our episcopal brethren ; still another question remains? 
viz. Is a compliance with that constitution so unalterably and 
indispensably binding on the church, that there can be no church, 
no ministry, no ordinances without it ? These questions are totally 
distinct, and ought never to be confounded. Yet Dr. Bowden and 
Mr. How almost uniformly confound them ; and seem to think that 
if the former question be answered in the affirmative, the latter 
must of course be answered in a similar manner. In a few instances, 
indeed, they admit the distinction to which I allude, and assert, 
that their only object is to establish the apostolical institution of 
episcopacy, without undertaking to pronounce on the consequences 
of rejecting it. But it is evident that, for the most part, they 
entirely lose sight of this distinction, and write as if the establish- 
ment of the fact, that prelacy existed in the primitive church, must 



236 LETTER I. 

effectunll}' destroy the character of all churches not found in pos- 
session of that form of government. Whether these positions so 
totally distinct are so generally confounded by my opponents for 
want of clear and distinguishing views, or with design, I presume 
not to say. But every discerning reader will be on his guard 
against impositions from either source. 

The-se gentlemen, indeed, themselves assert, with the whole body 
of episcopal writers, that the apostles never intended to lay down 
a model of church government, which should be, in all its parts, 
perpetually binding : and, of course, that the church is not bound 
to be, ill all respects, conformed to the apostolic model. I am not 
now inquiring whether this doctrine be correct or not. But if it be, 
how can the want of prelacy destroy the character and even the 
existence of the church? In what part of scripture is it said, that 
every other part of the apostolic government of the church is 
mutable, and may be modified by human wisdom ; but that dis- 
pensing with the single point of bishops, is fatal to the whole ? My 
opponents, then, even on their own principles, are far from having 
accomplished the task which they prescribed to themselves. They 
have never shown, and are not able to show, that prelacy was 
instituted by the apostles ; but even if they could, many links 
would still be wanting in the chain of proof, that this form of go- 
vernment is so necessary, that there can be no church without it. 

Mr. Hoio endeavours to represent my work as an unprovoked 
attack on the episcopal church, and to throw upon it all the odium 
of aggression. To those who are acquainted with the incontro- 
vertible facts stated in the beginning of this letter, such a represent- 
ation will appear something more than strange ! If to state and 
defend the principles of my own church, after they had been fre- 
quently and violently attacked ; if a calm and respectful plea against 
a sentence of excommunication from the church of Christ; if an 
attempt to show, that we, as Presbyterians, are not aliens from the 
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenant of pro- 
mise ^ if a work designed to prove that our ministry and ordinances 
have as fair a claim to divine warrant as those of our episcopal 
brethren ; and that they, in denying us the character of a church, 
and in consigning us over, with the heathen, to the uncovenanted 
mercies of God, act wholly without warrant — tf these things con- 
stitute an unprovoked attack on the episcopal church — then, indeed, 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 237 

T have been guilty of «n li an attack. But I am not afraid that any 
one who is acquainted with facts, and who understands the import 
of terms, will either bring such a charge himself, or consider it with 
respect when brought by others. 

Another charge which these gentlemen concur in urging, is no 
less unexpected and extraordinary. It is, that I have written with 
great bitterness, and that even my moderation is affected and 
insidious. This is a point concerning which no man can be an 
impartial judge in his own case. But, after receiving so many 
respectable suffrages in favour of the mildness and decorum of my 
style ; after receiving the acknowledgments of so many moderate 
and candid Episcopalians in different pans of the United States, 
both clergymen and laymen, that I had avoided asperity and bitter- 
ness to a very unusual degree ; it is impossible to avoid suspecting 
that these gentlemen, (who so far as I know stand alone in making 
this charge,) have felt irritated by statements which they could not 
deny, and by arguments which they could not refute ; and that 
they have mistaken both for bitterness and abuse. Dr. Bowden 
and Mr. How never discover so much wounded feeling and irasci- 
ble temper, as when they meet with intimations of any affinity 
between some of their high-toned doctrines, and those oi popery. 
The intimations of this kind which my book contains, were made 
neither lightly, nor with passion 5 but with a conscientious persua- 
sion of their correctness. This persuasion remains with undimi- 
nished or rather with increased force. And it happens, unfortu- 
nately for these gentlemen, that similar charges of popish origin and 
tendency, have been brought against several of the same doctrines, 
by some of the most pious and learned bishops of their own church. 
Nor can I forbear to add, that the pointed resentment which my 
opponents manifest at every suggestion of this kind, is calculated 
to excite the suspicion, that they feel it more easy to rail at such 
intimations than to answer them. 

But Dr. Bowden makes a further complaint, which is still more 
extraordinary. He thinks me very censurable for not having 
stated, in addition to the arguments in support of our opinions, the 
principal answers, " the triumphant replies,'' which episcopal wri- 
ters have given to these arguments. In one case, pjarticularly, he 
addresses me thus : "You certainly must have heard of, if you have 



238 LETTER I. 

" not read, Slater^s Original Draught , in answer to lord King, 
" which it has always been confidently said, made his lordship a 
'' convert to diocesan episcopacy. If you have heard of Slaier^s 
" book, but not read it, you should have made a point of procuring 
" it, and of stating his answer, that your readers might have a 
" fair opportunity of judging for themselves." Vol I. Letter 7. p. 
186. I can assure this learned professor, who so kindly undertakes 
to instruct me in my duty, that I both possessed and had read 
Slater^s work, long before 1 ever heard of Dr. Bowden or his Let- 
ters y- and that, however it impressed lord King, it was so far from 
converting me to diocesan episcopacy, that it rather served to con- 
firm me in my Presbyterian principles. But is it possible that this 
complaint of Dr, Bowden can be seriously made ? I>id I not dis- 
tinctly announce, in my introductory letter, that my object was, 
not to write a full and complete treatise, but a small and popular 
manual ? Did I not fairly apprize ray readers, that this plan 
would " lay me under the necessity of being every where extremely 
" brief, and of totally excluding many topics, both of argument and 
" illustration, which might be profitably introduced } " And did I 
not, to relieve in some measure, the difficulty thence arising, pro- 
raise, that " no arguments should be urged, but those which I 
" believed to have stood immovably solid, after every attempt to 
" answer them ? " Was it my duty, then ; would it have been 
proper, after all this, when I felt myself obliged to omit many argu- 
ments on my own side, which were, in my view, powerful and 
important ; to introduce arguments, many of them frivolous, and 
most of them destitute of real force, merely for the purpose of 
swelling my work into a number of volumes, and preventing it 
from being read by those for whom it was intended ? I have the 
charity to believe, that if Dr. Bowden, had indulged a moment's 
reflection, he would have been ashamed to urge a complaint so 
unworthy of his grave character. 

Besides, if it was my duty to state in detail all those arguments 
which the fond partiality of some episcopal writers has been pleas- 
ed to style "unanswerable," " triumphant," " demonstrative," &c. 
was it not Dr. Boiaden's duty to do the same with respect to the 
arguments of Presbyterian writers ? J3ut has he done this ? li I 
do not mistake, every impartial reader will pronounce, that in my 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 239 

little manual, I have gone as far, if not further, in stating the argu- 
ments and replies of my opponents, than this gentleman has in his 
two volumes. 

These gentlemen, in the course of their strictures, have allowed 
themselves frequently to employ language of which I cannot for- 
bear to exhibit a specimen. Dr. Bowden charges me with " con- 
temptible cavilling ; with " contemptible puerilities ;" with "misre- 
presentations gross to excess ;" with writing "nonsense," " palp- 
able nonsense," &c. &c. &c. Mr. How's pamphlet abounds with 
language, which I hope he will reconsider, in his cooler moments, 
with shame and regret. He charges me with "a continued strain 
of misrepresentation ;" with " an outrage of decency itself 5" with, 
a construction " as puerile as it is disengenuous;" with " fanatical 
absurdities;" with " violations of the plain language of scripture, as 
presumptuous as are to be met with in the entire annals of fanaticism;" 
with ''talking like a deranged fanatic;" and with advancing allega. 
tions which I "ought to know, and cannot but know," to be ground- 
less. In fact, he frequently imputes tome, in terms a little indirect 
and softened, known and deliberate falsehood. And on one occasion? 
he permits himself to address me thus: " You could not possibly 
"have adopted a mode of address more calculated to sour the minds 
"of your readers, or better fitted to indulge the bitterness of your 
" own heart. It is direct and insidious, covering under the mask of 
" moderation and kindness, all the loftiness of pride, and all the 
" rankling of passion." p. I6. Dr. Hohart represents me as wri- 
ting with great " arrogance" and " bitterness," and even with 
insidiousnessj a term which no intelligent reader needs to be told, 
implies dishonesty. I regret that such language has found its way 
into this controversy. I am not able to see that it aids the argu- 
ment of those who employ it ; and it certainly contributes nothing 
to the charity of christian intercourse. You will not imagine, I am 
sure, that this language is capable of exciting in me a feeling of 
personal resentment or pain. But it is exceedingly to be lamented, 
that gentlemen of their station should indulge in a style so scrupu- 
lously banished from all dignified and polished society; that a 
person so long employed as one of them has been, in forming the 
moral principles and character of youth, should discover so little 
success in the discipline of his own temper ; and that they have 
not all more highly appreciated the duty of being examples to the 



240 LETTER 1. 

jioch It shall be my aim, in the following pages, to avoid all 
similar language. And if you should ever find me inadvertently 
betrayed into it, be assured it is contrary to my fixed resolution ; 
and that, when discovered, it will be a source of unfeigned regret. 
May we all remember, with the celebrated author of the ecclesias- 
tical polity, that " there will come a time when three words uttered 
" with charity and meekness shall receive a far more blessed 
" reward than three thousand volumes written with disdainful 
«^ sharpness of wit!" 

But these gentlemen not only employ, on their part, what I must 
consider as exceptionable language ; they also impute to me lan- 
guage scarcely less offensive or exceptionable than their own. Dr. 
Bowden says that I pronounce episcopacy an antichristian 
usurpation. Vol. I. p. 245. And Mr. How asserts, that I " bran^i 
prelacy as the detested offspring of ecclesiastical fraud and 
tyranny.^' I can only say that no such expressions are to be 
found in my book ; and that whatever there is in them which bears 
an opprobrious or indelicate character, is to be ascribed, not to 
me, but to the invention of my accusers. 

I shall not attempt to follow these gentlemen through all their 
minute and tedious details. For this drudgery I have neither 
leisure nor inclination. It would be again to travel over the whole 
ground which I have already endeavoured to explore, and to 
exhibit in a just light ; and whi:h, after carefully attending to all 
that they have said, still appears to me to rest on immovable 
foundations. After requesting you to peruse my former letters a 
second time with care, and to compare them impartially with what 
my opponents have advanced, the cause is cheerfully committed to 
your decision. All that I propose, at present, is to review some 
of the most plausible reasonings of these zealous and confident 
polemics ; to point out a few of their more gross and palpable mis- 
takes ; and to show the candid reader how far he can rely on the 
statements of persons who discover so little acquaintance with more 
than one side of the controversy 5 and at the same time allow them- 
selves to speak as if they engrossed all knowledge, and as if wisdom 
would die with them. 

These letters, my brethren, as well as the former series are in- 
tended solely for your use. They are occasioned, indeed, by the 
strictures of the gentlemen whose names are mentioned in the title 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 241 

page ; but I have not thought proper to address those gentlemen 
directly. With them I have no personal dispute. Though they 
have intruded into our Church for the purpose of attacking me in 
the peaceable discharge of my pastoral duties, I have still no 
disposition to do more than to act on the defensive. But to refute 
their cavils, to repel their unfounded and injurious charges, to lay 
open the weakness of their cause, and to expose their want of 
information on this subject, is a duty which I owe to you. This 
duty I will attempt to discharge ; and in the executipn of it, I hope 
you will follow me patiently. 



2 H 



( 242 ) 



LETTER 11. 



COMPARATIVE STRESS LAID ON ECCLESIASTICAL ORDER BY PRESBYTE- 
RIANS AND HIGH-CHURCHMEN— THE DOCTRINE OF THE JURE-DIVINO 
PRESBYTERIANS BRIEFLY StATED. 



CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

Two of the gentlemen whose attacks I am called upon to repel, 
accuse me of misrepresenting the high-toned episcopal doctrine 
which they avow, and endeavour to maintain. They impute to 
me a desire to excite prejudices against them, by insinuating, that 
they exclude all but Episcopalians from salvation. Mr. HoWf in 
particular, brings forward and urges this accusation with great zeal. 
I utterly deny the charge. I never intended to convey such an 
insinuation ; and am persuaded that my letters do not contain a 
single sentence which can be fairly construed as expressing it. 

But I have asserted, that such Episcopalians as agree with these 
writers, exclude us from the covenanted mercy of God, and declare 
us to be destitute of all interest in the promises of salvation. I 
have asserted, that they pronounce us to be out of the church of 
Christ, and aliens from the covenant of grace. I have asserted, 
that, while they express a charitable hope that such of us as depart 
from the episcopal church from " involuntary ignorance or error," 
will find mercy 5 they uniformly consider and represent this mercy 
as extended to Presbyterians, in the same manner, and on the same 
principles, as to the heathen ; that is, not in virtue of any cove- 
nant engagement, or explicit promise; but on the footing of 
general, unpledged mercy. I have said this, and this onli/, and all 
this, they have themselves, in effect, avowed, repeated, and gloried 
in, with a zeal worthy of a better cause. 



PRESBYTERIANS NOT ILLIBERAL. 243 

But these gentlemen insist, that however high and ofTensive 
their claims may be considered, we, on our part, advance claims as 
high and as offensive as theirs ; and, therefore,'on our own prin- 
ciples, have no right to complain. They urge this argument with 
much confidence, and seem lo regard it as a triumphant answer to 
the charge of unscriptural assumption. Mr. How expresses him- 
self thus : " Episcopalians lay no more stress on external order 
" than does the society to which you belong. Who could have 
" supposed it possible, after seeing you through several pages, 
" declaiming against the monstrous pretensions of your opponents, 
" that they carry external order precisely as far as your own 
" confession of faith, and not a tittle further." p. 16. Again he 
says, " You inveigh bitterly against your episcopal neighbours, 
" for asserting the exclusive validity of episcopaLordination. But 
" you equally assert the exclusive validity of presbyterial ordina- 
" tion ; telling us, that, without such ordination, there can be no 
" ministry ; without a ministry, no church ; and without a church, 
" no covenanted title to salvation. In addition to all this, you 
" assert the divine institution of presbyterial government, in all its 
" parts, excluding its habitual violators, cases of unavoidable igno- 
" ranee or involuntary error excepted, from the kingdom of 
" heaven. If the episcopal doctrine is of a nature nearly allied to 
" the claim of papal infallibility, your doctrine must be the claim 
" of papal infallibility itself." p. 117. Nay, he asserts, that 
Presbyterians carry their ideas of the importance of external 
order much further than Episcopalians, p. 22, 23. " I proceed to 
" observe that Presbyterians go much further than Episcopalians 
" in their ideas of external order. Thus, not contented with 
" making presbyterial ordination essential to the existence of the 
" church, and to all covenanted title to salvation they tell us that 
" presbyterial government is, in all its parts, sketched out in 
« scripture ; that it is the duty of all Christians to conform to it ; 
" and that, in refusing or neglecting to do so, they incur great 
" guilt. The plan of ruling elders and deacons, with mere 
" temporal functions ; the whole system of church sessions 
" presbyterial assemblies, synodical assemblies, and general assem- 
" blies, they say, is prescribed in the word of God. In fact, it is 
« impossible to carry external order further than these men carry 
« it. See the language which ihey hold ! Presbyterial govern- 



244 LETTER II. 

" ment, in church sessions, presbyterial assemblies, synodical 
" assemblies, and general assemblies, is established by the apostles, 
" and is the law of God's house. All are bound to conform to it. 
'* Habitual disobedience to any of the divine commands will exclude 
" from the kingdom of heaven. Thus all but Presbyterians are 
" consigned to perdition. And what relief do they give ? Why, 
" simply, that there are sins of ignorance and infirmity which may 
" consist with a gracious state. So that our opponents not only 
*' make presbyterial ordination essential to the existence of the 
" church, but they represent obedience to their particular mode of 
" ecclesiastical government as a condition of salvation : placing 
" all who reject it on the ground of the general mercy which, it is 
" hoped, God will extend to persons labouring under unavoidable, 
'^ or involuntary, error. And is not this, sir, the exact ground on 
^^ which those who depart from the episcopal constitution of the 
" priesthood are placed by the very men against whom you so 
" bitterly inveigh V This is such a favourite topic of declama- 
tion with Mr. How^ that he can scarcely get through a single page, 
without directly or indirectly recurring to it. His coadjutors seem 
to be never better pleased than when joining in the same strain. 
And truly it wants nothing to render it a very plausible argument, 
but the single circumstance of having some foundation in fact. 
Of this, I am compelled to say, it is totally destitute. 

To show that Mr. How^ in writing thus, unjustly accuses our 
church, nothing more is necessary than to transcribe the following 
chapters from our Confession of Faith^Sind Form of Government, 
They are given entire, that there may be no suspicion of conceal- 
ment or mutilation ; that the several sections of each chapter may 
explain one another ; and, I will add, that Mr. Howj if he should 
ever happen to look into these pages, may have an opportunity of 
reading them, which, after perusing such remarks as are quoted 
above, I cannot suppose he has ever yet done. 

CONFESSION OP FAITH. — CHAP. XXV. OF THE CHURCH. 

" I. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible^ con- 
sists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall 
be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the 
spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. 



PRESBYTERIANS NOT ILLIBERAL. 045 

" XL The visible church which is also catholic or universal 
under the gospel, (not confined to one nation as before under the 
law,) consists of all those throughout the world, that profess the 
true religion, together with their children ; and is the kingdom of 
the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and faniily of God, out of which 
there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. 

" III. Unto this catholic visible church, Christ hath given the 
ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and 
perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world : and 
doth by his own presence and spirit, according to his promise, 
make them efTectual thereunto. 

" IV. This catholic church hath been sometimes more, some- 
times less visible. And particular churches, which are members 
thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the 
gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and 
public worship performed more or less purely in them. 

" V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to 
mixture and error : and some have so degenerated, as to become 
no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless 
there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according 
to his will. 

" VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus 
Christ, Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof; 
but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that 
exaltelh himself, in the church, against Christ, and all that is called 
God." 

FORM OP GOVERNMENT. — CHAP. I. OF THE CHURCH. 

" I. Jesus Christ, who is now exalted, far above all principality, 
and power, hath erected, in this world, a kingdom, which is his 
church. 

" II. The universal church consists of all those persons, in every 
nation, together with their children, who make profession of the 
holy religion of Christ, and of submission to his laws. 

" III. As this immense multitude cannot meet together, in one 
place, to hold communion, or to worship God, it is reasonable and 
warranted by scripture example, that they should be divided into 
many particular churches. 



246 LETTER Tl. 

" IV. A particular church consists of a number of professing 
Christians, with their offspring, voluntarily associated together, for 
divine worship and godly living, agreeably to the holy scriptures; 
and submitting to a certain form of government." 

FORM OF GOVERNMENT. — CHAP. II. OF THE OFFICERS OF THE 

CHURCH. 

" I. Our blessed Lord, at first, collected his church out of different 
nations, and formed it into one body, by the mission of men endued 
with miraculous gifts, which have long since ceased. 

" IL The ordinary and perpetual officers, in the church, are 
bishops or pastors ; the representatives of the people, usually styled 
ruling elders, and deacons.''^ 

FORM OF GOVERNMENT.— CHAP. VII. OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT, AND 
THE SEVERAL KINDS OP JUDICATORIES. 

" I. It is absolutely necessary that the government of the church 
be exercised under some certain and definite form : and we hold it 
to be expedient, and agreeable to scripture and the practice of the 
primitive Christians, that the church be governed by congregational, 
presbyterial, and synodical assemblies. In full consistency with this 
belief, toe embrace, in the spirit of charity, those Christians who 
differ from us, in opinion or in practice, on these subjects. 

" IL These assemblies ought not to possess any civil jurisdiction 
nor to inflict any civil penalties : Their power is wholly moral or 
spiritual, and that only ministerial and declarative. They possess 
the right of requiring obedience to the laws of Christ; and of 
excluding the disobedient and disorderly, from the privileges of the 
church. To give efficiency, however, to this necessary and scrip- 
tural authority, they possess the powers requisite for obtaining 
evidence and inflicting censure ; they can call before them any 
offender against the order and government of the church : They 
can require members, of their own society, to appear and give tes- 
timony on the cause ; but the highest punishment to which their 
authority extends is to exclude the contumacious and impenitent 
from the congregation of believers." 

In these chapters, every line is marked with wisdom, moderation, 
and charity. They are so/ar from asserting that no church is enli- 



PRESBYTERIANS NOT ILLIBERAL. 247 

tied to the name of a church of Christ, but our own, that the con- 
trary is clearly and unequivocally acknowledged. They are so 
far from maintaining, that there is no salvation out of the pale of 
our church, that they could scarcely have found words more strong- 
ly to express an opposite opinion, without running into unlimited 
latitudinarianism. They make the visible church to consist of «Z* 
those throughout the world, who profess the true religion, together 
with their children ; and, lest the phrase, the true religion, migh^ 
be construed to mean an exact conformity ivifh our own standards, 
they declare that they consider as included in the visible catholic 
church, many churches less pure than their own, and that they 
freely "embrace in the spirit of charity, those Christians who differ 
" from them, in opinion, or in practice, on these subjects." They 
go on to state, that this visible church is the kingdom of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no 
ordinary possibility of salvation ; thus making express provision 
for the, exercise of mercy in ways extraordinary, and therefore 
unknown to us. Could any thing be more guarded or remote from 
bigotry ? These gentlemen, however, insist, that in the chapter of 
the Confession of Faith, (Chap. 27.) which treats of the sacra- 
ments, it is formally declared, that " neither of the sacraments may 
" be dispensed by any other than a minister of the word lawfully 
" ordained.^' But what is this to the purpose ? Who is a " minis- 
" ter of the word lawfully ordained ?-' If any preceding or subse- 
quent passage in our public standards, had asserted, or even intimat- 
ed, that no minister is lawfully ordained, but one who has been set 
apart exactly in our mode, there would be some pretext for this 
cavil. But no such assertion or intimation, nor any thing that 
resembles either, is contained in the whole book. It prescribes the 
course of study, and the kind of trials which candidates for the 
ministry, in our church, shall be required to pass through, and it 
also directs the mode of their ordination : but it pronounces no 
sentence of invalidity on other modes of conducting these important 
concerns ; nor does it give a hint, from which, by fair reasoning, 
such a sentence can be deduced. 

But this is not all. While the language of our confession of 
faith and articles of government, is catholic and charitable in a 
very remarkable degree, their history illustrates and confirms their 
language. They were drawn up by the Westminister Assembly 



248 LETTER IT. 

of Divines, than which a more venerable body of ministers never 
convened. This ilkistrious ecclesiastical council consisted of more 
than a hundred divines, besides the lay members. And it is 
remarkable, that «// of these divines, excepting about seuew or ez^A/, 
had received episcopal ordination and ?io other. Is it credible that 
these men, assembled as ministers, judicially deliberating and 
acting as ministers, could have intended to pronounce their own 
ordination null and void ? Or that they would frame articles de- 
claring all such ordinations in future invalid ? No; such a sentence 
was never pronounced ; and I may confidently assert, was never 
thought of by a member of that assembly. While they declared 
the Presbyterian form of church government to be the apostolic 
and primitive plan ; they explicitly acknovvledged the validity of 
episcopal orders and ministrations. And the same has been the 
language and the conduct of every Presbyterian church that ever 
existed on earth. 

Ministers episcopally ordained have frequently applied to be 
received into Christian and ministerial communion with Presby- 
terian churches, both in Europe and America. But did Mr. How 
ever hear of one of them being re-ordained? I will venture to say 
he never did. Ministers have offered themselves to the church to 
which I have the honour to belong, not only from the episcopal^ 
but also from the MetJiodist and the Baptist churches. But was 
a re-ordination ever attempted, in any one of these cases ? I can 
confidently affirm that no such case ever occurred ; certainly 
none ever came to my knowledge. In every instance in which it 
was ascertained that the minister applying to be received, had been 
regularly set apart to the sacred office, by the imposition of the 
hands of men authorized to preach and administer sacraments in 
their own church, he was freely received, and his ordination sus* 
tained as valid. Does this look like pronouncing our precise form 
of church order indispensable to a regular ministry, to valid ordi- 
nances, or to final salvation ? Had we been accused of being 
zealous advocates for the doctrine o( purgatory or transubstantia' 
Hon, the charge would have been equally true, and equally 
creditable to the candour of its author. 

But perhaps Mr. How will plead, that, although our church, in 
the language of her public standards, is, on the whole, liberal and 
conciliatory ; yet that other branches of the Presbyterian body, 



DOCTRINE OF PRESBYTERIANS. 249 

particularly those with which Dr. Mason, and Mr. M*Leod are 
connected, go the whole length of asserting the exclusive validity 
of the Presbyterian ministry and ordinances. Such is one of the 
arts to which this gentleman resorts, when he cannot find materials 
enough in our confession of faith, to satisfy his insatiable appetite 
for proscription and excommunication. But neither will this sub- 
terfuge avail him. He accuses others as unjustly as he accuses 2is, 
It is not true that the most high-toned Presbyterians on earth, go 
any thing like the length, in maintaining the necessity of our 
particular mode of constituting the christian ministry, that this 
gentleman and his friends do in asserting the exclusive validity of 
episcopal ordination. And, although both Dr. Mason and Mr. 
M'Leod may hold some opinions concerning the Christian church 
in which I do not entirely concur with them ; yet there cannot be 
greater injustice than to speak of them and their writings in the 
manner in which Mr. How has permitted himself to do. To what 
this mistatement of their opinions is to be ascribed, it becomes 
not me to say. I dare not impeach the integrity of Mr. How. For 
acquitting his honesty at the expense of his understanding, he 
would not thank me : And to suppose that he has allowed himself 
to speak with so much positiveness of their tenets, without any 
acquaintance with them, would be as offensive as either. 

But are there not some Presbyterians who hold that their form 
of church government was the apostolic and primitive form? 
Undoubtedly, many. And are there not some also, who go fur- 
ther, and insist that this form is binding on the church, under all 
circumstances and states of society, and, of course, ought to be 
adopted in all ages ? There are certainly some who go even this 
length. Well ! ray opponents will reply, is not this holding to 
the divine right of Presbyterian government? It is. And is it 
not, of consequence, going the whole length with us, and denying 
that there can be any true church, or valid ordinances without it ? 
Certainly not. The conclusion has no more connexion with the 
premises, than with the most remote object in creation. 

As both Dr. Bowden and Mr. How have evidently yet to learn 
the sentiments of the^wre divino Presbyterians, and as, for want 
of information on this point, they are groping in the dark, when- 
ever they approach it ; I will endeavour to enlighten this part of 
their path, and, if possible, prevent, in future, those perpetual 
2 I 



250 LETTER TI. 

wanderings, which are really much more calculated to excite the 
ridicule, or the commiseration, than the resentment of their 
Presbyterian readers. 

The advocates, then, for the divine right of presbytery, (I now 
speak of the most rigid class of them,) believe that, in the apostolic 
church every regularly organized congregation of Christians was 
furnished with three classes of church officers, with a bishop, (or 
pastor,) ruling elders, and deacons ; that the bench of elders, with 
the bishop as their standing moderator or president, constituted the 
spiritual court, for directing all affairs purely ecclesiastical in the 
congregation ; that the bishops of a number of neighbouring 
congregations, were in the habit of statedly meeting together, not 
only to cherish a spirit of union and fraternal affection, but also to 
deliberate on matters of more general concern, than those of a 
particular church ; that in these larger assemblies or presbyteries, 
(or by whatever name they were called,) a delegation from the 
eldership of each church attended with their bishop ; and that, 
either statedly or occasionally, (it matters not which, as to the 
principle,) the bishops and elders of much larger districts, convened 
under the title oi synods or councils, for the purpose of discussing 
and deciding great questions, and of making general arrangements. 
This, they suppose, was the form of government which the apostles, 
acting under the inspiration of God, established in the primitive 
church. They believe, moreover, that as this form of ecclesiastical 
polity was adopted by inspired men, it is the best form ; that it 
was intended to be perpetual ; that it is the duty of churches, in 
all ages, and in all states of society, to adopt it ; and that ia pro- 
portion as any deviate from it, they deviate from the simplicity 
and purity of t|ie apostolic age, and contravene the will of God. 

But, while this class of Presbyterians zealously maintain the 
principles which have been stated, they, at the same time, expHcit- 
ly grant, that there may be deviations from this apostolic form of 
government, without destroying^ or, in any essential degree, 
impairing^ the character of a Christian church. They suppose 
that imperfection attends every thing human. That although every 
church, as well as every man, is required to be in all respects 
perfectly conformed to the divine will j yet that neither any church, 
nor any man is, in fact, thus perfect. They suppose that, 
among individual professors of religion, there may be all manner of 



DOCTRINE OF PRESBYTERIANS. 251 

variety as to the degrees of exemplariness which they manifest ; and 
yet'that they may all be entitled, in the judgment of charity, to be 
considered as visible Christians ; and further, that cases may arise, 
in which it would be difficult to decide whether a mans deviations 
had proceeded so far, as that he ought, on the whole, to be excluded 
from this class or not. In like manner, the Presbyterians of whom 
we are speaking, admit that there are churches which differ con- 
siderably as to the degrees of purity which they have preserved, 
but which, notwithstanding, are all entitled to the character of 
visible churches of Christ. They suppose, indeed, that all devia- 
tions from primitive simplicity, whether in doctrine, in worship, or 
in government, are blamable and ought to be corrected ; but still, 
that such may exist, in a certain degree, without excluding those 
who are guilty of them from the class of churches. And in what 
actual cases these deviations have become so numerous and import- 
ant as to render them no longer churches of Christ, but Syna- 
gogues of Satan, they have seldom undertaken to pronounce. 

The most rigid Presbyterians have, at different times, both as 
individuals and judicatories; both by their writings, and their de- 
cisions, explicitly acknowledged different denominations of Chris- 
tians to be true churches of Christ. They have acknowledged our 
Congregational brethren in New England; the regular Indepen- 
dents in various parts of Great Britain; the Episcopalians m 
England and America; the Lutherans in German?/ and the United 
States', and the Methodist and Baptist denominations, as all 
churches of Christ. They consider all these, indeed, as more or 
less corrupt; and have, accordingly, at different times, and without 
reserve, written, preached, aud printed their testimony against 
those corruptions ; but still they have never said of any of them, 
that they had no church, no ministry, no valid ordinances, but 
acknowledged the contrary without hesitation or scruple. 

In short, the high-toned Presbyterians, of whom we are speaking 
do not carry the divine right of church government further than 
they carry the divine right of doctrine and worship in the church. 
Nay, it may be asserted, that, without a single exception, they have 
always laid more stress on the tioo latter than on thej^rs^, as en- 
tering more immediately than that into the vital interests and cha- 
racter of the church. Now, it is well known, that this class of 
Presbyterians, as well as all others, freely admit that there may be 



252 LETTER 11. 

departures from absolute purity, both in doctrine and worship, 
without unchurching those who admit them. They believe, for 
instance, that Arminianism is a doctrinal corruption ; but yet they 
would shudder to pronounce that those churches which receive it, 
have no valid ministry or ordinances, or to deny that any of their 
members may be saved. They are pursuaded, that in the primi- 
tive church there were no ybr»?s of prayer used in public worship; 
and that the introduction of them is unwarranted and inexpedient; 
yet I never heard of any one who considered this as so essential 
an innovation, as either to doubt the piety of those who used forms, 
or even to pronounce it absolutely unlawful to unite in worship 
conducted by a liturgy. They know that kneeling at the Lord's 
supper, and the doctrine of transubstantitation came into the 
church together, and have no doubt that together they ought to 
have been discarded; yet they do not imagine, that this mode of 
receiving is inconsistent with pious and acceptable communicating; 
much less that it vitiates the sacrament ; and least of all, that it in- 
fers a belief in the grand popish error with which it was originally 
connected. I have known Episcopalians to receive the sacred 
bread and wine, kneeling, from the hands of a Presbyterian mi- 
nister, when all the rest of the communicants were sitting ; and 
have no reason to suppose that any other Presbyterian minister 
would have scrupled to comply with a similar application. 

It is to no purpose to say, " that if these be the opinions of 
jure divine Presbyterians, they are inconsistent with themselves ; for 
that a belief that Presbyterianism was the apostolic form of church 
government, necessarily carries with it, on every principle of sober 
reasoning, a belief that there can be no church, no ministry with- 
out it." This conclusion is as illegitimate in reasoning, as it is 
false in fact. The Presbyterians of whom we are speaking, utterly 
disavow this doctrine which is, by inference, imputed to them ; 
and declare, that, as it is not deducible from their principles, so it 
makes no part of their creed. 

The warmest advocates of the divine right of prelacy admit 
that a church may depart in many respects, from the primitive 
model, without forfeiting the title of a church of Christ ? They 
consider the church of Rome as a true church of Christ, though a 
degenerate and corrupt one. In one of the Homilies of the 
church of England, drawn up by archbishop Cranmer, and the 



DOCTRINE OF PRESBYTERIANS. 253 

other reformers, it is expressly declared, that that church is not 
only " idolatrous and unchristian ; not only an harlot^ as the 
" scripture calleth her, but also di foul, Jilthj , old iDithered harlot ; 
" \\\2 foulest 'dndfUhiest harlot, that ever was seen."* I do not 
contend for the decency of these epithets. That is no concern of 
mine. I state the real language of the church of England^ as 
deliberately expressed in her standards. And yet, while high" 
churchmen solemnly declare their belief in the doctrine of these 
Homilies, they acknowledge the church of Borne to be a church of 
Christ; trace their line of succession through her; and uniformly 
acknowledge her ministry and ordinances to be valid. In fact, i^" 
is on the principle that it is lawful to depart from the exact pattern 
of the primitive church, with respect to rites, ceremonies, and 
discipline, that the church of England vindicates many things in 
her own system, which she acknowledges were neither enjoined 
nor practised in the days of the apostles. Nay, many of her sons, 
and especially those who advocate the doctrine of my opponents, do 
not scruple to affirm, that the whole system of ecclesiastical govern- 
ment and discipline is mutable,! and may be lawfully modified 
according to human wisdom, excepting the single part, so dearly 
beloved, which respects the three orders of clergy. Every thing 
else, in the external organization, they suppose may be ahered, with- 
out affecting the essence of the church ; but to touch this part of the 
body, they consider as the invasion of its vital organ. 

Thus it appears, that the highest-toned^wre divino Presbyterians 
do not lay any thing like the stress on their form of church govern- 
ment, that Dr. Bowden, Mr. How, and olher jure divino prelatists 
do on the point of Episcopacy; that the charge brought against 
them that they unchurch all who reject the Presbyterian govern- 
ment, is perfectly unfounded ; not deducible from any of their 
principles, and totally disavowed by them ; that their public 
standards, their judicial decisions, and their most esteemed writers, 
all with one voice, acknowledge that there are true churches, a 
regular ministry, and valid ordinances, where Presbyterianism is 
wanting ; and, of course, that the allegations of Dr. Bowden, and 

• Homily against peril of idolatry. Part III. page 216. Edit. Oxford, 
1802. 
t See Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity y passim. 



254 LETTER II. 

Mr. How, are not only unsupported by evidence, but brought for- 
ward directly in the face of all legitimate evidence. When these 
gentlemen, or either of ihem, shall produce a single volume or 
document, sanctioned by any Presbyterian church, or from the 
pen of any esteemed Presbyterian divine, which contradicts my 
statement, I shall then, and not till then, acquit them of calumninat- 
ing our venerable church. 

But these gentlemen will, perhaps, ask, " Do we not find in the 
writings of many Presbyterian divines, severe epithets, expressive 
of strong disapprohation, applied to the episcopal hierarchy ? Have 
we not actually pointed out some instances of this kind?" Granted. 
And what then ? May I not see an egregious fault in an acquaint- 
ance, and reprove him sharply for it, without deeming it so great 
as to expunge his name from the list of my friends, or to pronounce 
hira a bad man ? May we not consider and oppose as an error, that 
which we do not believe, at the same time, will destroy the charac- 
ter of a church ? I am sure that no offensive language directed 
against Episcopalians, is to be found in the Confession of Faith of 
our church, and very seldom in our best writers. But if it were other- 
wise, where shall we find language, to be compared on the score 
either of indelicacy or severity, with that which the church of 
England has formally directed against the church of Rome,* while 
at the same time she acknowledged, and does still acknowledge, her 
ministry and ordinances to be valid. 

Dr. Bowden and Mr. How make much use of the society of 
Quakers in this controversy. They ask me, whether, amidst all 
my professions of liberality, I can consistently with our Confession 
of Faith, acknowledge the Quakers as a visible church of Christ ? 
And if not, how I can find fault with Episcopalians for not acknow- 
ledging us ? My only reply to all their declamation on this subject 
shall be short. It is not 2i practical question. The society of 
Quakers do not profess to have an ordained ministry, at all, in the 
sense of most other denominations of Protestants. The question, 
then, whether we can acknowledge their ordinations, ministry, and 
sacraments to be valid, can never come before us; for none of 
these things make any part of their ecclesiastical system ; and, of 
course, can never be offered to us to receive our sanction. I consider, 
therefore, all that my opponents have said on this subject, as a 

* See page 252. 



DOCTRINE OF PRESBYTERIANS. 255 

vain effort to obscure the merits of the real question, and as incon- 
clusive as it is irrelevant to the controversy. 

Dr. Bowden and Mr. How speak much of *^ covenanted^' and 
" uncovejianted^' mercy. The latter candidly and repeatedly avows 
his belief, that all who are in communion with a church organized 
in the episcopal form, are in covenant with God ; and that all 
others, without exception, are aliens from the commonioealth of 
Israel, strangers to the covenant of promise, and have no hope 
but in the general wicovenanted mercy of God. We certainly can 
have no objection to his informing us what is his creed, and we 
thank him for being so unreservedly communicative on the subject. 
But he goes further. He undertakes to say that Presbyterians, on 
their part, hold a similar opinion 5 that they exclude from the 
christian covenant all but Presbyterians ; nay, that they pronounce 
all who do not embrace " the rigid peculiarities of Calvinism,^' to 
be in an unregenerate state, and coolly consign them to " uncove- 
nanted mercy." Had Mr. Hoio asserted that all Presbyterians are 
zealous advocates of the divine mission o( Mahomet y'li would have 
been, rather more ridiculous indeed, but not a whit more remote 
from fact than this statement. His position is not only not true, 
but there is not a shadow of foundation for it ; nor can he produce 
a single Presbyterian writer, of respectable character, who says any 
thing that can be reasonably construed as bearing the least resem- 
blance to this doctrine.* 

Presbyterians, (I speak now of all that I have ever known or 
heard of, particularly the most rigid among them,) Presbyterians, 
I say, believe, that according to the tenor of the covenant of grace, 
salvation \s promised, that is, secured by covenant engagement, to 
all who sincerely repent of sin, and unfeignedly believe in the Lord 
Jesus Christ. Of course they consider all who bear this character, 
to whatever external church they may belong, or even if they bear 
no relation to any visible church, as in covenant with God, as 

* It is to be hoped that Presbyterians understand the gospel too well 
to speak of " uncovenanted mercy" at all. The phrase itself is unscrip- 
tural; and if it convey any meaning-, it is an erroneous one. Fallen crea- 
tures know of no mercy but that which is promised or secured by the 
covenant of grace, in Christ Jesus our Lord. If Dr. Bowden and Mr. How 
have discovered any other Jcindov channel oi (HiyinQ mercy, lean only say, 
they have not found it in the Bible. 



256 LETTER II. 

inerested in his great and precious promises, and as in the sure 
and certain road to his heavenly kingdom. They know, indeed, 
and teach, that it is the duty of all who believe in Christ, to connect 
themselves with his visible church ; they teach also, that receiving 
the seals of Goti's covenant, and attending on all the ordinances of 
his house, are solemnly enjoined, and productive of essential advan- 
tages. Nay, they go so far as to pronounce that he who neglects 
these ordinances, when he is favoured with an opportunity of 
attending on them, gives, in ordinary cases, too much reason to 
fear, whatever may be his declarations to the contrary, that he has 
no real love to Christ. But still they do not, and without contra- 
dicting the Scriptures, they cannot, teach that the means of religion 
constitute its essence, or that the seals of the covenant, form the 
covenant itself. The seal on a bond, is not itself the contract, but 
only the evidence of it. In like manner, the seals of the christian 
covenant, are not in themselves the promise or the engagement 
either on the part of God or man ; but are the constituted means of 
recognizing or ratifying a covenant transaction, supposed to have 
previously taken place in secret, when the person receiving the seal, 
embraced the gospel, and cordially devoted himself to Christ on 
the terras of the covenant. 

I repeat it, then, the dectrine of all Calvinistic Presbyterians is, 
that every one who loves the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and 
maintains a holy life, whatever may be the mistakes into which he 
may fall, or the prejudices against particular parts of evangelical 
truth and order which he may entertain ; whatever the disadvan- 
tages under which he may labour, with respect to his ecclesiastical 
connexions ; or even if he were placed in circumstances in which 
he never saw a place of public worship, a minister of the gospel, or 
a church officer of any kind, in his life ; that every such person is 
in covenant with God, and has that title to salvation which is given 
by i\\Q promise of a faithful God to every sincere believer. How 
much error, how^much infirmity, how much deviation from the exter- 
nal order which God hath appointed in his house, is consistent with 
true faith, we know not, nor has any Presbyterian, with whose person 
or writings I am acquainted, ever attempted to decide. But that 
every one who has sincere faith in Christ, is in covenant with God, 
they, with one voice, proclaim and teach. 

This simple statement also refutes another assertion, which Mr. 



DOCTRINE OF PRESBYTERIANS. 257 

How permits himself, without the smallest foundation, to make and 
repeat. The assertion to which I allude, is conveyed in the fol- 
lowing terms. " All of you declare baptism and the supper to be 
^^ general conditions of salvation; representing them as seals of 
" the covenant of grace, without which, it is impossible to have 
" any ordinary or regular claim to the blessings of that covenant. 
" Such as habitually neglect these ordinances, saving a little allow_ 
" ance for error, you exclude from the kingdom of heaven. — Intole. 
'^ rant and bigoted wretches ! To give so much importance to the 
^* ceremony of sprinkling water, or of receiving bread and wine ! 
" And to tell us too, that it is impossible to have these ordinances, 
" except at the hands of ministers preshyterially ordained. How 
" much better is all this than the tale of papal infallibility ! How 
" far are you removed from catholic absurdity and arrogance!'* 
Letters, \). 117' Mr. How assevis that aZ/ Presbyterians believe 
and speak thus. But can he find one that does ? I know of none 5 
and am confident there is none. Our Confession of Faith says no 
such thing. On the contrary, it expressly declares, that persons 
to whom these ordinances are never administered, may he saved ; 
and that those who do receive them may perisJi. " But," says Mr. 
How, " your Confession of Faith represents baptism as the only 
" mode of admission into the visible church ; it declares that out of 
" the visible church, there is no ordinary possibility of salvation 5 
" and it maintains that baptism ought not to be administered by 
"^ any but a minister of the gospel lawfully ordained. Does it not 
" follow then, that without baptism, there is ^ no ordinary possi- 
" biUty of salvation ?" No, it does not follow. His premises are 
incorrect, and his conclusion is equally so. With all his confidence 
he blunders at every step. Every one who has read our Confes- 
sion of Faith, knows its doctrine on this subject to be, that all who 
jjrofess the true religion, are members of the visible church 5 that 
the children of such persons, by virtue of their birth, and of course 
anterior to baptism, are also members of the church; and that 
baptism is only the appointed seal, or solemn recognition, and 
ratif cation of their membership. This is perfectly plain ; and it 
cuts up by the roots every pretence for the statement which Mr. 
How has made. 

With respect to Mr. Howh direct and repeated assertion, that 
Calvinistic Presbyterians make a belief in the doctrine of" election," 
2 K 



258 LETTER II. 

and (he other, " rigid peculiarities of Calvinism,'^ essential to our 
being in covenant with God, and that they represent all who do 
not receive these " peculiarities" as given up to uncovenanted 
mercy, it is difficult to answer it as it deserves, without speaking of 
its author in a manner in which I cannot permit myself to speak of 
a Christian minister. It is no arrogance to say that I am probably 
as familiar with the writings of Calvinistic divines as Mr. How : and 
I can solemnly declare, that to the best of my recollection, I never 
met with one who expressed such a sentiment, or who gave the 
least reason to suppose that he held it : nor do I believe that Mr. 
How ever saw or heard of one. On the contrary, I have scarcely 
ever opened a volume by the most zealous Calvinist^ in which a 
question of this kind was discussed, without finding an acknow- 
ledgment, either express or implied, of the sincere piety, and of 
course the covenant title to Ae«?;en, of many who were far from 
being Calvinists. But you will find, my brethren, before you 
have completed the perusal of these sheets, some apology for Mr. 
How. You will clearly perceive that he is not acquainted with 
the writings of Calvin, and that he does not understand the 
system of doctrines which is distinguished by the name of that great 
reformer. 

Mr. How, in his zeal to prove that Presbyterians are even more 
uncharitable than such highchurch-men as himself and others, 
endeavours to throw great odium on a clause in the 10th chapter 
of our Confession of Faith, which is in the following words :" Much 
" less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved, in 
" any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame 
" their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that 
" religion which they do profess ; and to assert and maintain that 
" they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested." All that these 
words are intended to assert, is, that none of our fallen race can be 
saved in any other way than through Christ. The slightest pe- 
rusal is sufficient to ascertain that this their real meaning. But, 
even if the language of the clause itself had left this point doubtful, 
all doubt would be removed by attending to another clause in the 
same chapter, and only five lines distant from that which we are 
considering, which expressly recognizes the possibility of some 
being saved, who have never had an opportunity of hearing the 
gospel preached. The doctrine, then, of the passage alluded to 



DOCTRINE OF PRESBYTERIANS. 259 

by Mr. How^ is simply this, that it is false and pernicious to teach 
that men may be saved in any other loay, than through the atoning 
sacrifice, and sanctifying spirit of Christ. A position in which 
one would imagine all professing Christians, except Socinians and 
Universalists, must, without hesitation, concur. But Mr. How 
exceedingly disHkes it, and is determined to hold it up to detesta- 
tion and abhorrence, as asserting that none who have not been 
favoured with the preaching of the gospel can possibly be saved ; 
and as consigning the whole heathen world to inevitable perdition. 
By what management does he attempt to do this ? By faithfully 
transcribing the clause, and laying it before his readers in a fair 
and unmutilated form ? Not at all. Had he done this, his purpose 
would have been defeated. Every reader would instantly have 
recognized in the language of our Confession of Faith, a perfect 
coincidence with that of the scriptures.* But by a contrivance, 
which, it will hereafter be seen, is not unusual with this gentleman, 
he first essentially alters the passage, and then presents it, regular- 
ly marked with inverted commas, as if it were the real language of 
the article. What that language in jToc^ is, you have already seen. 
Mr. How declares that it is as follows. " They who having 
" never heard the gospel, know not Jesus Christ, and believe not 
'* in him, cannot be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their 
" lives according to the light of nature.'' Letters, p. 25. Having 
thus taken out of the passage an important clause which it does 
contain, and added to it what it does not contain, he holds it up to 
his readers as consigning to inevitable perdition, the whole heathen 
world. And assuming this as the acknowledged construction, he 
vehemently declaims against it as " uncharitable," " cruel,"- a 
" position of deep-toned horror," and calculated to " fill the ra- 
" tional mind with dismay." 

But the most wonderful part of the story is yet to be told. It 
is a fact, that one of the thirty-nine articles of Mr. How's own 
church, contains precisely the same declaration that he, with so 
much violence, condemns in our Confession of Faith. The article 
referred to, is the eighteenth, which is in the following words. 
" They also are to be had accursed, that presume to say, that every 
" man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so 

* See particularly Ads A. 12. John 14. 6. John 17. 3. Gal 1. 6, 7, 8. 



260 LETTER 11. 

" that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the 
" light of nature. For holy scripture dolh set out unto us only the 
" name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved." The only 
difference worthy of attention, is, that the Presbyterian Confession 
of Faith pronounces the doctrine, that men may be saved otherwise 
than by Christ, " 'pernicious'^ and to be " detested.^' Whereas, 
the episcopal article, more harshly, declares, that the persons who 
hold it, are to be had accursed. This article Mr. How has solemn- 
ly subscribed, and the doctrine contained in it, he has canonically 
sworn to preach and support. And yet he declares " he has no 
power to express the feelings with which this most detestable doc- 
/nne fills his bosom." To what can we ascribe this conduct? I 
am unable to think of it without the deepest astonishment and 
horror ! * 

In a note, in a former edition of this work, to p. 17, of my 
introductory letter, I expressed myself in the following terms. 
" Several distinguished writers in Great Britain, who have 
" lately espoused with much warmth, the exclusive episcopal 
" notions under consideration, do not scruple to assert, that 
" all who * are in communion with the episcopal church are 
" in communion with Christ,' and in the ^ sure road to salva- 
** tion.' They deny that there is any pledged or covenanted mercy ; 
" in other words, that there are any promises given in the gospel to 
" persons who are not in communion with that church, however 
" sincere their faith and repentance, and however ardent their piety. 
" And, accordingly, they turn into ridicule every attempt to distin- 
^* guish between ^professing Episcopalian, and a real Christian." 
With this passage Mr. How is much offended. He not only rebukes 
me with great severity for penning a paragraph so " calculated to 
deceive and inflame my readers; but he goes further, and declares 
that the sentiment which I ascribe to the writers in question, is not 
held by them ; and that I " ought to know, and cannot but know,'' 
that they do not hold it. Thus charging me in pretty direct terms 
with writing a known and deliberate falsehood. — p. 14, 15. 

* The passage which Mr. How refers to the Confession of Faith is really 
to be found in the larger catecliism, in the answer to the 60tli question. 
As it contains, however, nothing- essentially different from the article 
quoted cither from the Confession of Faith, or from the 18//i article of tlie 
episcopal church, no further remark seems necessary. 



DOCTRINE OF PRESBYTERIANS. 261 

As I had mentioned no names, and as Mr. How, of course, could 
not certainly know to what particular writers T alluded, it is some- 
what singular that he should venture a contradiction with so much 
confidence and indecorum. But as neither delicacy nor caution 
enter into the plan of controversy which this gentleman has adopt- 
ed, I no longer wonder at any extremes of his rashness or violence. 
The truth is, that in the paragraph above stated, I have not only 
not intentionally misrepresented any one, but am also still persuad- 
ed that I fell into no real error. But, however this may be, all 
that I said, was advanced on the authority of a respectable divine 
of the church oi England, now living, who expresses himself in the 
following words. " Mr. Daubeny, in like noanner, sees no diflfer- 
" ence between the true church of Christ, and the national church ; 
" represents professed membership with this national society as 
" forming the line of distinction between the world which lieth in 
" wickedness and a state of condemnation before God, and those 
" who are in a state of sanctification and salvation ; and speaks 
" indiscriminately of all who have been regularly baptized, and 
" remain in the established communion, as " members of Christ's 
" body," " partakers of Christ's spirit," the " peculiar properly of 
" Christ," and as having " a peculiar interest in hira :" in other 
" words, as " translated from the world," delivered from the 
" powers of darkness," and heirs with Christ of an eternal king- 
"dom." Guide to the Church, ip. 15, 16.171, 172. 234, and 
" passim. " Every Christian," that is, every prof essed Christian, 
" he says again, after being called to reconsider the subject, who 
" is " living in a state of communion with the church," namely, 
" with that " visible society" of Christians, where the episcopal 
" form of government is to be found, fs in the sure road to salva- 
" tion.^' Appendix, Letter 7, 452. Antijacohin Review, Feb. 
" 1800, p. 145. The distinction between the national establish- 
" ment, and the true church of Christ, .Mr. Dauheny teaches, is 
" unnecessary," and a " false distinction." " That," he says, 
" may be a true church in which the pure word of God is not 
" preached." Appendix, p. 252, 475, 476. Mr. Polwhele con- 
" siders it among the greatest exiravangancies, to think unfavour- 
" ably of the state of many, " who every Lord's day attend the 
" the service of the church. Letter to Dr. Hawker, p. 38. Dr. 
" Paley, Dr. Croft, and their admirers, teach that the scripture 



263 LETTER II. 

« titles of " elect," " called," " saints," being in Christ," &c. 
" were intended in a sense common to all Christian converts," and 
" that, " the application of such titles to distinguish individuals 
" amongst us, the professors of Christianity, from one another," 
" argues the greatest ignorance and presumption. Dr. Faley's, 
" Visitation Serm. at Carlisle, 1777, p. 11, 12. Dr. Croft's 
" preface to his Thoughts, &c. and Mr. Clapham^s Sermon. In 
" further conformity to this doctrine, the scripture terms and 
" phrases, " conversion," " regeneration," the becoming " dead 
" to sin," and " alive from the dead," the being made " sons of 
" God, from children of wrath," these divines tell us, now mean 
" nothing,'^ that is, as they explain it, " nothing to us, or to any 
^^ one educated in a Christian country,'^* What Mr. How him- 
self may think of his own prudence, after reading these extracts, I 
know not 5 but I should suppose that others could be at no loss 
what opinion to form on the subject. 

Mr. How refers frequently, and with much triumph, to a passage 
toward the close of my letters in which he considers me as having 
advanced a claim as high and offensive as his own, and also, as 
having contradicted myself. The passage alluded to, is one which 
occurs in discussing the doctrine of uninterrupted succession, and 
is in the following words. *^ If, as we have proved in the foregoing 
" letters, the right of ordination, according to Scripture and primi- 
" tive usage, belongs to presbyters, it is evident that the succession 
" through thetn, is as valid as any other : or rather, to speak more 
" properly, it is only so far as any succession flows through the 
" line of presbyters, that it is either regular or valid. It is the laying 
" on of the hands of the presbytery, that constitutes a scriptural 



* Overton's True Churchmen Ascertained. 2d Edit. p. 115 — 118. li 
will probably be contended by Mr. How and his friends in this contro- 
versy, that Mr. Overton^ though a good churchmany is not accurate in his 
representation. He has indeed been loaded with much abuse by many 
for his fidelity. But it unluckily happens, that the editors of the Chris- 
Hon Observer, though warm Episcopalians, and men of great talents and 
lei\rning-, fully justify M. Overton in the substance of his representation. 
They think, it is true, that he scarcely does justice to Mr. Daubeny ; 
but they acknowledge at the same time, that Mr. D. has too frequently 
expressed himself in a manner calculated to give countenance to the 
opinions ascribed to him. 



DOCTRINE OF PRESBYTERIANS. 263 

" ordination ; and it is because Episcopal bishops are presbyters, 
" and assisted in all ordinations by other presbyters, that we con- 
" sider their ordaining acts, on the principles of Scripture and primi- 
" tive usage, as valid." In this passage, Mr. H, asserts, that I have 
pronounced Presbyterian ordination alone to be valid, and, of 
course, have unchurched all who are destitute of it. Now as the 
whole strain of my volume is of a different kind ; and as, in various 
parts of it, an opposite doctrine is explicitly avowed and maintain- 
ed, candour, I think, should have dictated to this gentleman a more 
favourable construction, even supposing my language to admit of 
that which he puts upon it. But, in truth, when this passage is 
examined, it will be found that the doctrine which it contains, is so 
far from being high-toned and offensive, that it is taking the very 
lowest ground that any denomination of Christians, who hold to 
a regular ministry at all, have maintained. What does it say? It 
affirms that ordination by presbyters is valid, and that it is the only 
ordination which the Scriptures warrant. Now the Presbyterian 
pastors, the episcopal bishops, the ministers of the Independent, 
Lutheran, Methodist, and Baptist churches, are aWpresbyters ; and 
of course, are all empowered to ordain. The doctrine of the above 
cited passage, therefore, instead of being high-toned or exclusive, 
recognizes as valid the ordinations of every church on earth, which 
receives and acts on the principle that clerical ordination of awy 
kijid is necessary. 

But after all, how has the episcopal claim been construed by 
impartial judges? If, as these gentlemen assert, the most zealous 
and high-toned advocates of prelacy, do not lay greater stress on 
their particular form of church order, than Presbyterians do on 
theirs ; if they make no greater nor more offensive claims ; how 
has it come to pass that the contrary has been, by all parties, so 
generally understood and acknowledged ? How has it happened, 
that every respectable Presbyterian who ever wrote on this subject 
has utterly disclaimed sentiments in anywise resembling those of 
the jure divino prelatists ? How has it come to pass that many 
warm friends of episcopacy have reprobated the claims of some of 
their own denomination, as pecuhar to themselves, as well as 
groundless and offensive ? How could such men as archbishop 
Wake, be so grossly deceived ? He, in a letter to a Presbyterian 
minister of Geneva, in the year 1719, pronounced the high-church- 



264 LETTER IX. 

men of his day, for advancing exactly such claims as those of Dr. 
Bowden and Mr. How, to be madmen,* Was this respectable pre- 
late ; were the great body of the most eminent writers, both Pres- 
byterian and episcopal, who have treated of this subject for the last 
two hundred years, all ignorant and mistaken ? I must be allowed 
to believe that they were at least as learned, and discerning, and 
that they understood the points in dispute, at least as well as either 
Dr. Bowden or Mr. How, 

Dr. Bowden and Mr. How, more than once accuse me of depart- 
ing from the doctrine of our Confession of Faith, concerning the 
christian ministry; and express some apprehensions that I may be 
called to an account by my own church, for deviating from her 
standards. The former of these gentleman also observes, that, 
before he saw my Letters, he had supposed me to be a Presbyterian; 
but that to such Freshyterianism as mine both Calvin and Knox 
were entire strangers. The best refutation of these charges will 
be found in the facts exhibited in the following sheets ; the shghtest 
attention to which will convince you, that, until my opponents 
become better acquainted with our Confesssion of Faith, and also 
with the writings of Presbyterian Reformers, they are but ill quali- 
fied to pronounce what system agrees or is at variance with these 
great authorities. 

But although I am not conscious of departing either from the 
letter or the spirit of that Confession of Faith which I have solemn- 
ly subscribed ; and although I am confident that my Presbyterian- 
ism is substantially the same with that of Calvin and Knox ; yet 
let us remember that we are to call no man, or body of men. Mas- 
ter on earth. One is our Master, even Christ. His word is the 
sole standard by which, as Christians, or as churches, we must 
stand or fall. Happy will it be for us, if we can appeal to the great 
Searcher of hearts, that we have not followed the traditions and 
inventions of men, but the sure word of prophecy, which is given 
us ,to be a light to our feet, and a lamp to our path, to guide us in 
the way of peace ! 

* See my former letters^ p. 174, 175. 



( 265 ) 



LETTER III. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 



In the second letter of my former series, I endeavoured to estab- 
lish the principle, that the onli/ testimony by which the controversy 
in question ever ought to be, or can be decided, is that of Scrip- 
ture. The word of God is the only perfect and infallible rule of 
faith and practice. The moment we quit this ground, we are 
plunged into all the uncertainty of tradition, and into all the con- 
fusion of contradictory testimony. The moment we quit this ground, 
the defence of Protestantism against the Papists is impossible. In 
this general principle, our episcopal brethren 'concur. They 
acknowledge that the question before us is a matter oifacty to be 
ascertained by a sound interpretation of Scripture. And yet, for 
the most part, they have no sooner made the acknowledgment, than 
they contradict themselves, by setting human authority above the 
inspired volume. 

In this inconsistent course, Dr. Bowden has signalized himself. 
He has, indeed, pursued it with a degree of boldness which is truly 
rare. He does not think it necessary even to save appearances. 
Instead of assigning to Scripture the first and highest place; instead 
of beginning with it, and permitting it to stand on its own proper 
eminence, he begins with the fathers ! Nor is this all. As if 
afraid of examining and exhibiting the testimony of the fathers in 
their natural order, from the apostolic age downwards, he begins 
2 L 



266 LETTER III. 

with the fathers of the/owrf/i century ; reasons backward ; assumes 
the corrupt principles and language of that age as genuine, and then 
employs them to interpret the primitive writers; and thus endea- 
vours to make his readers believe that the order of the church was 
the same in ihe fourth, that it had been in the^rs^ century ; and 
that the words bishop, elder, deacon, meant exactly the same thing 
in the days of Eusebius, Basil, and Jerome, that they had done in 
the days of the apostles. I thank Dr. Bowden for the important 
concessions which this course of reasoning tacitly discloses. I 
thank him for the manifest unwillingness which he discovers to 
encounter either the testimony of Scripture sHone , or the testimony 
of the early fathers alone. His very arrangement of evidence 
speaks more than volumes. Of the fairness of this arrangement, 
I say nothing. No reader of the smallest discernment needs a 
single remark to aid him in judging of this point. But I could 
scarcely have asked for a more humiliating confession of the weak- 
ness of his cause, and of his distressing consciousness that neither 
Scripture nor early antiquity will bear him out in his claims, than 
is to be found in this management, which he, no doubt, considered 
as a master stroke of policy. But this genileroan goes a step fur- 
ther. After conducting his readers through a catalogue of quota- 
tions, placed in retrograde order, from the fourth century upward 
to the apostles 5 after presenting to them a corresponding series of 
pictures in an inverted, and therefore deceptive light ; and after 
bringing them, wearied and perplexed, to the dividing line between 
the fathers and the canon of Scripture, he expresses himself in the 
following terms : " As episcopacy appears from a cloud of wit- 
" nesses to be the government of the church at the close of the apos- 
" tolic age, it can never be admitted that any thing in the Neio 
" Testament militates against this fact.'' Letters, i. p. 240. The 
plain English of this declaration is," The controversy is to be de- 
" cided by the fathers. In approaching the inspired volume, we are 
" previously to take for granted that it does not, and cannot con- 
" tain any thing contrary to their testimony. And even if it appears 
" to contain facts or principles inconsistent with their writings, we 
" are to draw our conclusions from the /a^^er rather than i\\G former. 
" Were the scriptures to teach otherwise than the fathers, we could 
" not believe them." I do not say that this doctrine is, in so many 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 267 

words, avowed by the reverend professor ; nor even that he dis- 
tinctly recognizes such a monstrous position in his own mind : but 
I will say, that such is the spirit of the principle which he lays 
down, and that I verily believe him to have been governed by it in 
all his reasonings. 

But although my opponents discover so much reluctance to be 
judged by the Jaw, and the testimony, I hope, my brethren, we 
shall never so far forget our character as Christians and Protestants^ 
as to suffer our faith or practice to be tried by any other test. I 
will, therefore, request your serious and impartial attention to some 
further remarks on the scriptural evidence relative to the subject 
before us. You will not expect me, however, again to go over the 
whole ground of the scriptural argument. I shall only advert to a 
iew points on which either the most plausible or the most excep- 
tionable strictures have been made on our principles, as formerly 
advanced and defended. 

I again assert, then, that there is not to be found in the whole 
New Testament a single doctrine or fact, which yields the least 
solid support to the cause of prelacy ; but that, on the contrary, 
the whole strain of the evangelical records is favourable to the 
doctrine of ministerial parity. 

Dr. Bowden still insists that the angels of the seven Asiatic, 
churches, spoken of in Rev. ii. and iii. were no other than diocesan 
bishops. But really he does little more than assert and re-assert 
this, without producing any proof that deserves to be considered 
even as plausible. I had asked, " Is it certain that by these 
" angels are meant individual ministers .^" Dr. Bowden replies 
*' I think there can be no doubt of it." A very strong argument, 
it must be acknowledged ! But unfortunately there is much doubt 
of it. Some of the most learned gnd able Episcopalians that ever 
lived, have not only doubted, but denied it. And Dr. Mason has 
lately shown, with a force of argument which, in my opinion, no 
impartial mind can resist, that the title of angel in this portion of 
scripture, is a symbolical term, intended to express the ministry 
collectively of each of those churches ; that both the phraseology 
and matter of the addresses made to the angels are, in several 
instances, such as could only be directed to collective bodies ; and 
that to consider the title as designating an individual, is a con- 



268 LETTER III. 

• 
struction attended not only with insuperable difficulty, but with 

manifest absurdity.* 

But, admitting that this term designates individual ministers, 
does it follow that they can be no other than diocesan bishops ? 
By no means. The angels of Epliesus, Smyrna^ &c, might have 
been, as was observed in my former letters, the moderators of the 
presbyteries of those cities respectively 5 or they might have been 
the senior pastors, to whom, on account of tlieir standing and age, 
all communications intended for the churches in which they mi- 
nistered, were, by common consent, directed. The rector of 
Tritiity ChurrJi, in the city of New York, has^2;e congregations 
under his pastoral care, and is aided by the labours of several 
assistant clergymen ; yet this rector is not, as such, a bishop ; nor 
are his assistant clergymen inferior in order to him. The whole 
city oi Edinburgh, in Scotland, is one yarish, while there are near 
twenty churches, and more than twenty ministers, within and 
belonging to that parish ; still all these ministers are ecclesiastically 
equal, excepting that there is a moderator of the city presbytery, 
who has certain powers vested in hira, for convening the body, and 
preserving order during the sessions ; and to whom, also, all letters 
are directed, and all communications mads. And yet this is not 
considered as at all infringing the doctrine of Presbyterian parity. 
In truth, neither the title of angel, nor the addresses made to 
those on whom it was besiowed, nor any of the powers implied in 
these addresses, give the least countenance to the system of prela- 
cy ; and to suppose that they do, is as gross an instance of begging 
the whole question in dispute, as can well be produced. 

Dr. Bowden appears, indeed, to be sensible, that the scriptures, 
left to s-peak for themselves, by no means decide that the angels in 
question were prelates : he, therefore, has recourse to Irenceus, 
Clemens of Alexandria, Eusebius, Ambrose, &c. to help him out 
in his difficulty. They, it seems, assert that these angels were the 



* See that gentleman's very luminous and able review of the episcopal 
essays in the Christian's Magazine. This work, which I consider as one 
of the ablest periodical publications that ever appeared, ought to be in 
the hands of every one who wishes to attain clear and sound views of 
" evangelical truth and order." 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 269 

bishops of the respective churches mentioned in connexion with 
their names. But supposing these fathers to be, in all respects, 
credible witnesses; and supposing, too, that tlieir assertion is 
founded, not on conjecture, but authentic records ; it still remains 
to be ascertained in tvhat sense they use the word bishop. What 
Mnd of bishops do they mean ? Such bishops as the Presbyterian, 
and the great body of the reformed churches, allow to have existed 
in the days of the apostles, and still retain, or such as our episcopal 
brethren contend for ? Dr. Bowden undertakes to assert that they 
were of the latter kind ; but he says it without authority ;^for the 
fathers whom he quotes as witnesses, do not say so. They might 
have been scriptural bishops, without, in the least degree, serving 
the episcopal argument. 

Dr. Bowden endeavours to press the learned Blondel into his 
service, by representing him as admitting that the angels of the 
Asiatic churches are addressed as " having jurisdiction over both 
clergy and laity ;" and thus by implication as acknowledging the 
existence o( diocesan episcopacy in the apostolic age. This is a 
mistake. Blojidel says no such thing. After investigating this 
subject perhaps as profoundly as any man ever did, he tells us, 
that during the apostolic age, and for a considerable time afier, 
bishop and presbyter were reciprocally one and the same 5 that 
these were combined into classes ov presbyteries ; that the eldest 
minister, pastor, or bishop belonging to the presbytery, was, by 
virtue of his seniority, constantly the moderator ; that when he 
died, the next in age succeeded him, of course, and continued to 
hold the place during life. " These senior pastors," says he, 
" had a certain singular and peerless power, such a power as all 
" moderators, after whatsoever manner constituted, ever had, and 
" ever will have, belonging to them. Neither was the moderator 
" of any of these sacred colleges, chief among his colleague pres- 
" byters, as a presbyter, or as one placed in higher order above all 
" the other presbyters ; but as the eldest andjirst ordained pastor. 
" Nor did the rest as presbyters, but as younger presbyters, and 
" afterwards ordained, yield the moderatorship to him. His office 
" was to exhort the brotherhood ; to war a good warfare; tocom- 
" mend them to God by prayer ; to gather the presbytery ; to give 
" them a good example ; and to declare himself to be a diligent 
" messenger of God to mankind. And, therefore, as Christ does in 



270 LETTER III. 

" his admonitions to the angels of the Asiatic churches, both the 
" good and the evil deeds of the churches might be imputed to these 
" moderators." And again he says : " Linus, as he was a bishop, 
*^ had for colleagues Clement and AnacleiuSj who were shortly 
" after ordained bishops, with himself, in the same church of Rome, 
" But as he was the exarch or moderator of the brethren, he 
" neither had, nor could have any colleagues, (seeing the modera- 
*^ iorship can only fall to one person at once) but only successors, 
" There was a plurality of bishops, presbyters, or governors, at 
" same time, and in the same church. All these pastors or bishops, 
'^ on the very account of their presbyterate, were endued with 
" equal power and honour. The moderator was subject to the 
"pres6?/^ery, and obeyed its commands with no less submission 
" than did the meanest of their number. He had the chief power in 
" the college of presbyters, but had no power over the college it- 
" self." And, as if this learned man had been aware of every cavil 
that ignorance or sophistry could suggest, he expressly compares 
these ancient moderators with the moderators of presbyteries, in 
the reformed churches of Scotland and France, and assigns to the 
former no more power or pre-eminence than belongs to the latter. 
Blondelli Jpolog. Prcefat. pag. 6, 7. 18. 35. 38. I make no 
comment on Dr. Botvden^s perversion of these plain declarations. 
If he fell into it ignorantly, he is to be excused ; if wilfully no 
reader will be at a loss for appropriate reflections. 

Of the same character, and equally destitute of force, is all that 
Dr. Bowden has advanced to show that Timothy and Titus were 
prelates. After filling about thirty pages with what he calls his 
proofs of this point, he will really be found, when closely 
examined, to have done little more than beg the whole question in 
dispute. 

He insists that Timothy and Titus were not sent to Ephesus and 
Crete in the character of Evangelists ; that they had finished all 
the labours which belonged to them in this character, before they 
went thither ; and that their principal duties in those places were 
of an higher kind, and appropriate to an higher office. Nay, he 
formally sets it down, in a long catalogue, as one of ray " un- 
founded assertions," that I represent them as acting in that capa- 
city in the Ephesi an and Cretian churches. Has Dr. Bowden 
ever read that portion of the New Testament which is called the 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 071 

second epistle to Timothy ? Does not the apostle Paul say to 
Timothy, in that epistle, Do the work of an evangelist ? And 
was this written before he went to Ephesus ? Truly, when this 
gentleman can permit himself, with so little ceremony, to contra- 
dict an inspired apostle, I need not wonder that others fare so 
roughly in his hands. Nor will it afford any relief to his cause, to 
cavil about the meaning of the word evangelist. Whatever it 
then meant, or may now mean, it is certain that Paul applied it 
to Timothy, and that after he had been sent on his Ephesian 
mission. And if it v/ere applied to Timothy, no good reason can 
be assigned why it may not, with equal propriety, be applied to 
Titus, In fact, if it be conceded that the former was an Evan' 
gelist, and acted as such, when the epistles directed to hira were 
written, the friends of prelacy can have no interest in contending 
that the latter bore a different character ; for the same reasoning, 
in substance, applies to both. 

But Dr. Bowden still contends, that Timothy and Titus were 
diocesan bishops, because they were empowered to ordain others 
to the work of the gospel ministry? Shall we never have done 
with this begging of the whole question, in a manner so unworthy 
of logicians and divines ? Suppose they were empowered to 
ordain ? What then ? Do we not consider presbyters as invested 
with this power ? And is it not the great object of Dr. Bowden*s 
book to show that it was otherwise ? Why, then, does he attempt 
to impose upon his readers by taking the main point for granted ? 
Let him first prove that, in the primitive church, none were per- 
mitted to ordain, but an order of ministers superior to presbyters, 
and then his argument from the fact of Timothy and Titus having 
been invested with the ordaining power, will be conclusive ; but 
until he shall have established the former, which neither he nor any 
other man has done, or can do, the latter will be considered, by 
every discerning reader, as worse than trifling. 

Dr. Bowden and his friends also lay great stress on another 
point. They take for granted that there had been Elders (or 
presbyters) ordained by the apostle Paul himself, both at Ephesus 
and Crete before Timothy and Titus were sent to those places. 
Assuming this as a fact, they say, these presbyters, on Presbyterian 
principles, must have been invested with the ordaining power ; 
but if this were so, why were others sent on so long a journey, to 



272 LETTER HI. 

perform that which persons on the spot could have done as well ? 
Here, again, every thing is taken for granted. Where did Dr. 
B. learn that there had been presbyters fixed either in EpJiesus or 
CretCf before Timothi/ or Titus went thither? The sacred history 
says no such thing. With what face, then, can any man undertake 
to found his whole argument on a mere assumption ? It is certain 
that the epistle to Titus contains a direction to ordain elders in 
every city. There were, therefore, some cities, at least, which were 
not furnished with the requisite number, and probably with none at 
all. But admitting that there were elders already ordained both at 
Ephesus and Ore^e, still the argument is good for nothing. That 
some portions of those churches were unfurnished with ministers 
of any kind, and that they were all in a comparatively unorganized 
and immature state, is perfectly manifest from the whole strain of 
the apostle's language concerning them. Was it unnatural, on 
Presbyterian principles, that in this state of things, special mission- 
aries should be sent among them ; men well known as possessing 
the entire confidence of the apostle ; fully instructed in their duty ; 
and qualified to travel from place to place, and set in order the 
things ivhich were wanting ? Might not many prudential con- 
siderations have rendered it expedient to send such eminent 
characters from a distance, rather than to select men of less distin- 
guished and commanding reputation on the spot, to perform a ser- 
vice as delicate as it was arduous ? In fact this is precisely the 
course which has been, more than once, pursued, in Presbyterian 
churches, when they were in an unsettled state, without any one 
ever dreaming that it infringed the doctrine of ministerial parity ; 
or that it implied any deficiency of power in those ministers who 
resided nearer the scene of action. 

But Dr. Bowden further contends, that Timothy and Titus were 
empowered to ordain alone ; that is, that in the ordinations which 
they performed at Ejjhesus and Crete^ there were no other ordainers 
joined with them ; and hence he infers that the Presbyterian doc- 
trine cannot be true, because our rules do not admit of ordinaiion 
by a single presbyter. Here, once more, this dextrous disputant 
takes for granted the very thing to be proved. Who informed him 
that Timothy was theso/e ordainerat Ephesus^'dad Titus at Crete^? 
The epistles to those evangelists do not say so. Is he sure that 
they had not travelling companions, of equal power with them- 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 273 

selves, who united with them in every ordination ? can he deter- 
mine for what purpose Mark travelled with Timothy ; and Zenas 
and Apollos with Titus ? Or can he undertake to say that these 
persons never joined in setting apart others to the ministry ? Dr. 
B. is confident there had been presbyters ordained, both at 
Ephesus and Crete before these evangelists went thither. NoWj 
if there were such presbyters in those churches, will he venture to 
assert, that one or more of these were not always joined with TimO' 
ihj ?ind TVVms in ordaining other presbyters?* In short, neither 
Dr. B. nor any other man knows any thing about these matters 5 
and yet he assumes facts, and argues upon them with as much con- 
fidence, as if he were perfectly acquainted with every minute 
particular. 

This gentleman, however, still pleads, that directions about 
ordaining ministers, and regulating the affairs of the church were 
given to Timothy and Titus alone 5 that we hear of no others 
joined with them in those instructions; and that we have no right 
to suppose there were such. This plea does not deserve an 
answer; but it shall have one. Suppose one of our Presbyteries 
or Synods were to send out a company of two or three mission- 
aries ; and for the sake of convenience, were to convey their 
instructions in the form of a letter to the oldest and most prudent 
of the number ; would this individual have reason to consider 
himself as a person of a superior order, on account of such a cir- 
cumstance? Again, when we -ordain a minister, the person who 
presides in the ordination generally recites to the newly admitted 

* Dr. Bowden appears to think it strange that 1 sugg-est the possibility 
that some of the presbyters of Ephesus and Crete might have been 
united with Timoihy and Titus in their ordaining acts; when I had 
before represented it as utterly uncertain whether there were such 
presbyters in existence, and as rather probable that there were not. But 
there is no inconsistency here. I only mean to show that Dr. B. does 
not know whether there were or were not such presbyters; and that he 
can gain nothing by either supposition. If there were none such at 
Ephesus or Crete before these evangelists were sent, then a funda- 
mental argument in favour of the prelatical character of Timothy and 
Titus is destroyed. If there were such, then they might have assisted, 
for aught we know, in every ordination : and then another boasted argu- 
ment on the same side falls to the ground. Which ever supposition is 
adopted, it is equally fatal, 
2 M 



274 LETTER 111. 

brother many passages from the epistles to Timothy and Titusy 
seldom omitting, in particular, the injunction — Lay hands sud- 
denly on no man. But no minister ever considered this mode of 
address, as constituting him the sole ordainer in any case in 
which he should afterwards act. It would be as reasonable to say, 
that because the apostle gave Timothy direction about public 
preaching, therefore he alone was empowered to preach; or, 
because he was instructed with respect to some parts of public 
prayer,* therefore he only was allowed to pray. But there would 
be no end to such absurdities. It is really wonderful that gentle- 
men who appear to be serious, should lay so much stress on argu- 
ments, much better calculated to pour ridicule on their cause, than 
to afford it efficient aid. 

But, admitting that Timothy and Titus each acted as sole 
ordainers at Ephesus and Crete — the probability is, that they 
did not ; but, supposing it proved that they did, it does not affect 
the question in dispute. Although Presbyterians, wishing to con- 
form as perfectly as possible to scriptural example, require a plu- 
rality of ministers to be present, and to lay on their hands in ordi- 
nation ; yet I have no reason to suppose that any Presbyterian 
minister or church, would consider an ordination performed, in a 
case of necessity, by a single presbyter, as null and void. Suppos- 
ing it proved, therefore, that an inspired apostle, in a new and 
unsettled state of the church, sent forth evangelists singly to 
preach, ordain, and organize churches, it would establish nothing, 
either way, material to the present controversy. 

Every thing, therefore, that Dr. Bowden has advanced to estab- 

* By the way, it is not a little remarkable that the apostle should con- 
tent himself with giving* Timothy only general directions with respect to 
public prayer, and even these only with regard to some of the objects of 
petition. Where were the Liturgies of those times? Had Forms of 
Frayer been so indispensably necessary, or, at least, so pre-eminently 
important^ as our episcopal brethren tell us they are, and always have 
been, why did not Paul, or some other of the apostles, furnish the 
churches with Liturgies written by themselves, and under the immediate 
inspiration of the Holy Ghost ? How shall we account for it, that instead 
of sending Timothy a form, he only laid down for him a few general 
words of direction? But this is not the only instance in which the 
apostles appear to have been of a different mind from some modern 
churchmen. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 275 

lish the prelatical character of Timothy and Titus^ is perfectly 
nugatory. It is all mere assumption, instead of proof; and were 
it not for the respectable character of the author, would be totally 
unworthy of reply. He has no where proved that these ministers 
went to Ephesus and Crete in a higher character than that of 
itinerant presbyters. He has no where proved that they were the 
fixed pastors or bishops of the churches which he undertakes to 
assign to them. He has no where proved that there were presby- 
ters in those churches, before these evangelists were sent thither, 
who might, on Presbyterian principles, have performed the rite of 
ordination, without the trouble and expense of sending special 
missionaries to so great a distance. He has no where proved that 
Timothy or Titus was, either of them, the sole ordainer in any 
case. He has no where, in short, established a single fact concern- 
ing either of them, which has the least appearance of prelatical supe- 
riority. Even if he could establish these facts, his point would not 
be gained. He would, after all, be obliged to show, that they took 
place in a regular and established and not in a new and unsettled 
state of the church ; and that they were intended to serve, in every 
minute particular, as precedents. But be has not proved, and 
cannot prove, either the one or the other. I therefore repeat, with 
increased confidence, the closing sentence of the discussion of this 
subject in my former letters. " The argument which our episco- 
" pal brethren derive from Timothy and Titus is absolutely worth 
*^ nothing; and after all the changes that may be rung upon it, 
" and all the decorations with which it may be exhibited, it 
" amounts only to a gratuitous assumption of the whole point in 
" dispute.*' 

As to the testimony adduced from the fathers, to establish the 
prelatical character of Timothy and Titus, it is more, much more, 
suited, in the view of all intelligent readers, to discredit than to aid 
the episcopal cause. I had quoted from Dr. Whitby, an eminent 
episcopal divine, the following passage. — " The great controversy 
" concerning this, and the epistle to Timothy is, whether Timothy 
" and Titus were indeed made bishops, the one of Ephesus, and 
'^ the pro-consular Jsia ; the other of Crete. Now of this matter 
" I confess I can find nothing in any writer of the first three cen- 
" turies, nor any intimation that they bore that name.'* Dr. 
Bowden virtually concurs in this statement of Dr. Whitby ; for • 



276 LETTER 111. 

though he speaks with much confidence of the testimony of the 
fathers on this point, yet the first authentic witness,* among the 
fathers, whom he brings forward is Eusebius, who says, '* it is 
related that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus^ Now 
Eusebius does indeed say so ; but he also declares, generally, that 
his sources of information were exceedingly scanty and uncertain; 
and, in particular, he confesses, that it was not easy to say, who 
were left bishops of the several churches, by the apostles, except so 
far as might be gathered from the Acts of the Apostles and the 
Epistles of Paul. Eccles. Hist. h'lb. ui. Cap. 4. Here, then, is 
the sum of the evidence from the fathers^ as to this point. Eusebius 
stands first on the list. He quotes as his authority, the New 
Testament. All the others, as Ambrose, Epiphajiius, Jerome, 
Chrysostom, &c. follow Eusebius. The fathers, then, virtually 
confess that they knew no more of the matter than we do ; and of 
course their whole testimony is, to us, perfectly worthless. 

But some of the fathers speak on this subject in a manner that is 
somewhat unfortunate for the episcopal cause. On the one hand, 
several of them represent Timothy and Titus, and especially the 
former, as more than a single bishop, as bearing the dignity of an 
archbishop or metropolitan. Now, as Dr. Bowden, and his friends, 
acknowledge that there were no archbishops in the apostle's days, 
they must of course consider this testimony as false and worthless. 
On the other hand, one of the fathers quoted by Dr. Bowden, 
(^Chrysostom) in his Commentary on Titus i. 5. speaks of that 
evangelist in the following clear and decisive terms : " That thou 
'' may est ordain elders, says the apostle : he means bishops. In 
" every city, says he, for he would not have the whole Island 
" commuted to one man, but that every one should have and mind 
" his own proper cure ; for so he knew the labour would be easier 

* Dr. Boivden does, indeed, adduce one witness, whom he places 
before Eusebius, in the following words. *' From a fragment of a treatise 
*' by Bo/ycrai eSfhishop of jE/z^eszfs, towards the close of the second centu- 
** ry. Hiis fragment is preserved in Bhotius's Bibliotheca, and quoted by 
" archbishop Uaher in his discourse on episcopacy. In that fragment it 
*' is said, that • Timothy was ordained bishop of Ephesus by the great 
** BauL' " Nobody has ever seen the original work of Bolycrates ,• but 
BhotiuSf who was patriarch of Constantinople, towards the close of the 
ninth century, has preserved, it seems, a fragment of it in his Bibliotheca. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 277 

" to him, and the people to b€ governed would have more care 
" taken of them ; since their teacher would not run about to ^o- 
" vern many churches ; but would attend to the ruling of one only, 
" and so would keep it in good order.'' 

Here, Chnjsostom expressly declares, that Titus v/as not the 
bishop of all Crete ; that he was sent, not to take the fixed pasto- 
ral charge of the Island, but to place its churches under a perma- 
nent and regular ministry; that the apostolic direction was to set 
a bishop over every particular church : and that a single church 
was quite enough for a scriptural bishop to have under his care. In 
short, the whole passage is so entirely Presbyterian in its strain, 
that its force in our favour can be overlooked by none. 

But one of the most extraordinary parts of Dr. Bowden^s workj 
is that in which he undertakes to answer my argument drawn from 
the constitution of the Jeioish synagogue. 1 had shown, in my 
second letter, that the synagogue worship universally prevailed 
among the Jews, at the time of our Lord's coming in the flesh ; that 
the apostles, in organizing christian fliurches, willing to conform 
as far as possible, to the habits and prejudices of the first converts 
to Christianity, who were Jews, deviated as little as circumstances 
would admit from the synagogue model ; that this model was 
Presbyterian in its form : and that the nature of the public service, 
the names and duties of church officers, the manner of ordination, 
&c. were all transferred from the synagogue to the church. It is 
not easy to exhibit this argument in its native strong light before 
common readers, because i*t\v have any tolerable acquaintance with 
Jewish antiquities. But the more I reflect upon it, the more deep- 
ly I am persuaded, that, when properly stated and understood, it 
will be found an argument of the most conclusive and satisfactory 
kind. 

Dr. Bowdeuj however, views it as wholly destitute of force. 
This, indeed, might be expected from a man, who, as we have late- 
ly seen, is hardy enough to dissent from a direct statement of the 
Apostle Paul. But let us examine his objection and his rea- 
sonings. 

In the first place. Dr. B. insists that the christian church could 
not have been organized after the model of the Jewish synagogue, 
because the synagogue did not, properly speaking, partake of the 
character of the church ; being a mere human institution, and 



278 LETTER III. 

resting on no other basis than humcm^,authority. He asserts, that 
my not adverting to this fact, is the foundation of my whole error ; 
and that the due consideration of it will completely destroy my 
argument. I trust, however, that a ievf remarks will be sufficient 
to show that the want of due consideration is on Ids part, and not 
on mine ; and that the argument stands firm and unanswerable^, 
notwithstanding all he has sai^ 

When Dr. Boioden so confidently asserts that '^ synagogue 
was a mere human institution ; that no Jew was under any obli- 
gation to attend upon its service ; and that, being a mere creature 
of man, every one was at liberty, in the sight of God, to treat it 
as he pleased ; when he makes these assertions, he ought to know 
that he is speaking wholly without authority. Who told the learn- 
ed professor all these things ? If he can inform us icJien synagogues 
were instituted, by wJiom, and from v)hat source the suggestion or 
command to establish them came, he will render a piece of service 
to ecclesiastical history, for which all its students will have reason 
to thank him : for, truly, no'bther person has ever yet been able 
with any degree of certainty to give us this information. But if he 
cannot give a decisive answer to any one of these questions, how 
could he dare to speak on the subject in the manner that he has 
ventured to do r It is certain that synagogues are mentioned in the 
78th Psalm, and that they are there called synagogues of God. It 
is certain that putting an offender ow^ oftJie synagogue, was a well 
known mode of speaking among the Jews, to express excommuni- 
cation from the church 5 and it is equally certain, that our Lord 
and his apostles attended the synagogue service every sabbath day, 
and thus gave it their decided sanction. Now, all these taken 
together, look, to say the least, like something more than mere 
human contrivance. If, as some suppose, the synagogue was in- 
stituted by Ezra, after the Babylonish captivity, and none, that I 
know, ascribe to it a later, or less respectable origin, even this 
supposition will not aid Dr. Bowden, or countenance his reason- 
ing. Was not Ezra an ijispired man ? And will not, of course, 
an institution of his, rest on substantially the same ground, as to 
authority, with an institution established or enjoined by Peter or 
Paul? 

But granting to Dr. Bowden all that he asks ; granting that the 
synagogue was a mere human institution ; that it made no part of 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 279 

the Jewish church, properly so called ; and that no Jew was under 
any divine obligation to attend on its service ; what does he gain 
by the concession ? Nothing. It is so far from destroying my 
argument, that it does not affect or even touch it. Dr. B. does not 
deny that synagogues existed, and were in use, at the time in which 
the apostles were called upon to form their Jewish converts into 
Christian churches. How they came into use, or by what authori- 
ty they were introduced are questions foreign from the present 
inquiry. Again, Dr. B. does not deny, that every particular syna- 
gogue had three classes of officers, a hishop, elders, d^n^ deacons ; 
that the peculiar office of the bishop, (or as he was sometimes call- 
ed, the angel of the church) was {o premie in the public service, 
and lead the devotions of the people ; that the principal duty of the 
bench of elders, was to assist in ruling the synagogue, and admi- 
nistering its discipline ;* and that the deacons, though sometimes 
called to the performance of other services, were particularly 
charged with collecting and distributing alms for the poor. Dr. B. 
does not deny, that ordination by the imposition of hands was 
always employed in constituting the synagogue ministry. And 
finally, he does not deny, that reading the sacred scriptures 
expounding them, and offering up public prayers, formed the ordi- 
nary service of the synagogue. He does not deny that all these 
were found in the synagogue, and that none of them were found in 
the temple service. This is conceding all that I desire, or that my 
argument demands. I care not what doubts may be started con- 
cerning the date or the origin of these institutions. All that I have 
to do with, are the great and indubitable facts, that they were in 
use among the Jews ; and that in organizing the Christian church, 
the apostles, acting in the name, and under the authority of Christy 
appointed for the church the same classes of officers as existed in 
the synagogue; gave them, the same names; assigned to them 
similar duties; directed their ordination to be solemnized in the 
same manner ; and prescribed for them, substantially, the same 
course of public service. Can any thing be more conclusive ? He 
who can reject this plain induction of facts, will find it difficult to be 
satisfied with demonstration itself. 

* Dr. Bowden explicitly grants that there was a class of officers in every 
Jewish synagogue, similar to the ruling elders in the Presbyterian church. 
We shall hereafter see that this is an important concession. 



280 LETTER III. 

You will now be able, my brethren, to judge between Dr. Bow-' 
den and me, with respect to this point ; or rather between the 
Presbyterian and episcopal doctrine. We say that the Christian 
church was formed by the apostles after the model of the Jewish 
synagogue ; while those who contend for the divine right of 
diocesan episcopacy, assert, that it was drganized, after the model 
of the temple service. We produce proof. We show that the 
organization and service of the Christian church, resemble the 
temple in scarcely arty thing ; while they resemble the synagogue 
in almost every thing. We show that there were bishops^ elders, 
and deacons in the synagogue; but not in the temple : That there 
was ordination by the imposition of hands in the synagogue, but 
no ordination at all in the temple : That there were reading the 
scriptures, expounding them, and public prayers, every sabbath 
day, in the synagogue; while the body of the people* went up to 
the temple only three times a year, and even then to attend on a 
very different service : That in the synagogue, there was a system 
established, which included a weekly provision not only for the 
instruction and devotions of the people, but also for the maintenance 
of discipline, and the care of the poor; while scarcely any thing of 
this kind was to be found in the temple. Now, in all these respects, 
and in many more which might be mentioned, the Christian 
church followed the synagogue, and departed from the temple. 
Could we trace a resemblance in one or ^few points, it might be 
considered as accidental ; but the resemblance is so close, so strik- 
ing, and extends to so many particulars, as to arrest the attention 
of the most careless inquirer. It was, indeed, notoriously so great 
in the early ages, that the heathen frequently suspected and charged 
Christian churches, with being Jewish synagogues in disguise. But 
with respect to the temple service, this resemblance is, in almost 
every particular, entirely wanting. I ask, then, after which of these 
models was the Christian church formed ? The answer is so plain, 
that I should insult your understandings, by supposing it possible 
for you to doubt. 

* Only the males^ it will be observed, were required to go up to Jeru- 
salenif three times a year. If, therefore, Dr. Bowde7i*s position, that 
the synagogue service was a mere human invention, be admitted, then it 
will follow, that there was no public religious service of divine institution 
in which the Jewish females could ewer join ! Is this probable ? 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. ^81 

It is vain to object as Dr. Bowden does, that the resemblance 
between the Chrislian church and the synagogue is not absolutely 
"perfect as to every minute parliculur. This does not affect the 
general principle. He objects, for instance, that neither baptism 
nor the Lord's Supper is to be found in the synagogue service. Be 
it so. But were they to be found in the temple service, for the 
resemblance of which to the Christian church, he so ardently con- 
tends ? No. Baptism, among the Jews had no connexion with 
the temple; and with respect to the Passover, it was instituted 
long before the temple had a being ; and has been continued near 
eighteen hundred years since it was no more. 
' But Dr. Bowden is incorrect in his premises, as well as in his 
conclusion. Both baptism and the passover, though they had no 
connexion with the temple, wei'e connected with the synagogue. 
The ministers of the synagogue admitted proselytes to their com- 
munion by baptising parents and children. To constitute a regular 
Jewish baptism, it was necessary that three elders of the synagogue 
should be present. The synagogue officers also determined the 
question of right who should eat the passover. In fact, the syna- 
gogue officers did admit proselytes into the Jewish church, and 
excommunicate offenders. They had the care of the whole disci- 
pline from the time o( Ezra. The priests, it is true, had a voice ; 
but it was as members of the Sanhedrim, and not as officers of the 
temple. 

As to Dr. B.'s objection, that the organization of the Christian 
church cannot resemble that of the synagogue, because the bishop 
of the synagogue had only the charge of a single congregation, 
whereas he is persuaded that the Christian bishop has a charge 
extending over many congregations — I can only say, that while it 
includes a most ludicrous begging of the question in debate, it 
carries with it also a most important concession, which I take for 
granted the Dr. was not aware of; but which is fatal to his cause. 
He grants that the bishop of the synagogue, (and of course, the 
only kind of bishop to which the first converts to Christianity had 
been accustomed,) was the pastor, or presiding officer, over a 
single congregation. Now if the model of the synagogue, and 
not of the temple, was adopted by the apostles, it affords a strong 
presumption that the scriptural bishop was, what we suppoise him 
to have been, the pastor of a single church. In fact, Dj. B. fully 
2 N 



282 LETTER III. 

concedes this : for, in another part of his work, he frankly ac- 
knowledges that, in the days of the apostles, the title of bishop was 
currently applied to the pastors of particular churches. There is 
nothing now wanting, even on Dr. B.'s own principles, to render 
the resemblance between the synagogue and the church complete, 
so far as the ojicers of each are concerned, but to find ruling 
elders in the primitive church. But a bench of ruling elders, cor- 
responding with those who bear that name in our church, he 
acknowledges belonged to the synagogue ; and in the next letter I 
hope to prove, to the satisfaction of every impartial mind, that such 
officers were instituted in the primitive church. 

The great principle for which I am contending, viz. that the 
Christian church was organized on the model of the synagogue, 
has been received and maintained by a number of the ablest 
divines that ever wrote on the subject, both Presbyterian and 
Episcopal. But all testimonies adduced from the former will be 
viewed, by Dr. Bowden and his friends, with a suspicious eye. I 
shall, therefore, pass by all that has been said on this subject, by 
the incomparably learned and able Professor Vitringa, of Holland^ 
and by that prodigy of erudition, the celebrated Selden, of Eng- 
land — because they were Presbyterians.* But I hope ray oppo- 
nents in this controversy will pay some respect to the following 
quotations from some of the most respectable writers in their own 
church, who concede all that I ask or desire. 

The first quotation shall be taken from Bishop Burnet. 
" Among the Jews, (says be) he who was the chief of the Syna- 
" S^ogue, was called C/iazan Hakeneseth, i. e. the bishop of the 
** congregation, and Sheliach Tsibbor, the angel of the church. 
" And the Christian church being modelled as near the form of 
" the synagogue as they could be ; as they retained many of the 
" rites, so the form of the government was continued, and the 
** names remained the same.^' And again, " In the synagogues 
" there was, first, one who was called the bishop of the congrega- 
" tion; next the three orderers and judges of every thing about the 
*' synagogue 5 who were called Tsekenim, and by the Greeks 
" "Tr^sg^uTS^oi, or ys^ovrs?, that is, elders. These ordered and 

* I call Selden a Presbyterian, because though not a thoroug-h advocate 
for PresbyUrianism, strictly so called, he was decidedly anti-episcopal. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 283 

'* determined every thin^ that concerned the synngngne, or the 
" persons in it. Next them were the three Parnassin or deacons, 
" whose charge was to gather the collections of the rich, and dis- 
" trihute them to the poor."* 

The next quotation shall be taken from Dr. Lighffoof, another 
Episcopal divine, not less distinguished for his learning and tnlents. 
" The apostle," (says he) " calleth the minister, Episcnpus (or 
" bishop) from the common and known title of the Chozan or 
" Overseer in the Synagogue.''^ And again, " Besides these, 
" there was the public minister of the synagogue, who prayed 
" publicly, and took care about reading the law, and sometimes 
'^ preached, if there were not some other to discharge this office. 
*' This person was called Sheliach Tsibbor, the angel of the 
*' church, and Chazan Hakeneseth the Chazan or bishop of the 
" Congregation. The Aruch gives the reason of the name. The 
** Chazan, says he, is Sheliach Tsibbor, the angel of the churchy 
'* (or the public minister,) and the Targum renders the word Roveh 
" by the word Hose, one that oversees. For it is incumbent on 
" him to oversee how the reader reads, and whom he may call out 
" to read in the law. The public minister of the synagogue him- 
" self read not the law publicly, but every Sabbath he called out 
" seven of the Synagogue (on other days fewer) whom he judged 
'* fit to read. He stood by him that read, with great care observ- 
" ing that he read nothing either falsely, or improperly, and calling 
" him back, and correcting him, if he had failed in any thing. 
" And hence he was called Chazan, that is, 'E'jfisxoiros, i. e. bishop 
** or overseer. Certainly the signification of the word bishop and 
" angel of the church, had been determined with less noise, if 
" recourse had been had to the proper fountains, and men had not 
" vainly disputed about the signification of words taken I know 
" not whence. The service and worship of the temple being 
<' abolished, as being ceremonial, God transplanted the worship 
" and public adoration of God used in the synagogues, which was 
" moral, into the Christian church ; viz. the public ministry, pub- 
" lie prayers, reading God's word, and preaching, &c. Hence the 
" names of the ministers of the Gospel were the very same, the 
" angel of the church, the bishop which belonged to the ministers 

* Ohservaiions on the i. Can. p. 2. and ir. Can. p. 83, 



284 LETTER III. 

" in the si/nagogues. There were also three deacons^ or almoners, 
" on whom was the care of the poor.'^^ 

The celebrated Grotius,i whose great learning and talents will 
be considered by all as giving much weight to his opinion on any 
subject, is full and decided in maintaining that the primitive church 
was formed after the model of the si/nagogue. Many passages 
might be quoted from his writings, in which this opinion is directly 
asserted. The following may suffice. In his commentary on 
Ads XI. 30. he expresses himself thus : " The whole polity 
" {regimen) of the Christian church was conformed to the pattern 
" of the synagogue,''^ And in his commentary on 1 Tim. v. 17. 
he has the following passage. " Formerly, in large cities, as there 
" were many synagogues, so there were also many churches, or 
" separate meetings of Christians. And every particular church 
*^ had its own president, or bishop, who instructed the people, and 
" ordained presbyters. In Alexandria alone it was the custom 
^^ to have but one president or bishop, for the whole city, who 
" distributed presbyters through the city for the purpose of 
'^ instructing the people ; as we are taught by Sozomen. i. 14." 

The next point in Dr. Bowden^s exhibition of scriptural testi- 
mony, which demands attention, is the alleged episcopal character 
oi James over the church oi Jerusalem, This argument in favour 
of prelacy, was wholly omitted in my former volume, not because 
there was any difficulty in answering it, but because it really 
appeared to me too frivolous to be seriously considered. Dr. 
Botoden, however, having no arguments to spare, has brought it 
forward with much confidence, and seems to consider it, like every 
other on the episcopal side, as perfectly conclusive. Indeed he 
appears to regard me as guilty of injustice to the episcopal cause 
in passing it over in silence. 

But how does it appear, from the New Testament, that James 
was bishop of Jerusalem ? From such considerations, the advocates 
of prelacy tell us, as the following: 1, That in the synod at 

• See Lightfoofs Works, Vol. I. p. 308. and II. p. 133. 

f Though Groiius was bred a Presbyterian ; yet being soured by what 
he considered as ill treatment from the church of Holland, he discovered 
a strong predilection for episcopacy. When this is considered the 
declarations above cited, carry with them peculiar force. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 285 

Jerusalem {Acts xv.) he sjyole last, and expressed himself thus — 
Wherefore mij sentence is, &c. 2. That Peter, after his release 
from prison, said to certain persons — Go show these things unto 
James and to the brethren. Jets xii. 17- And 3. That, in 
Acts XXI. 17, 18. it is said — Jnd when we were come to Jerusa- 
lem^ the brethren received us gladly. And the day foUotving 
Paul went in with vs unto James ; and all the elders were pre- 
sent. On these passages Dr. Bowden asks : " Why did Peter 
direct certain things to be communicated particularly to James, 
if he were not the bishop ? What induced Paul and his company 
to go in unto James in particular ; and how came all the elders to 
be with James, unless he were the bishop ? On the supposition 
that he bore this character every thing is natural ; but on any other 
supposition these facts must appear very strange. I see enough to 
convince me that he was the head of all the presbyters and con- 
gregations in Jerusalem. For I find him constantly distinguished 
from his clergy. He is always mentioned Jirst, and the name of 
no other presbyter, however eminent he may have been, is ever 
given. He is mentioned with marked respect on various occa-- 
sions,'' &c. &c. I. 345—352. 

This argument, when stripped of all its decorations, stands thus : 
James was the last person who spake in the synod 5 therefore he 
was superior to all the apostles and others present ! Peter request- 
ed an account of his release from prison to be sent to James ; 
therefore James was a diocesan bishop ! Paul and his company 
went to the house of James in Jerusalem, and there found the 
elders convened ; therefore James was their ecclesiastical gover- 
nor ! 

Now, in the name of common sense, what connexion is there in 
this case, between the premises and the conclusion ? Are no cler- 
gymen ever treated with "pointed respect," unless they are 
diocesan bishops ? Do no clerical meetings ever take place in the 
houses of any other class of ministers than diocesan bishops ? 
Cannot messages of a public nature be sent to individual ministers 
of the gospel, without supposing them to be prelates? Suppose a 
number of Presbyterian ministers had an important communica- 
tion to make to the clergy of a certain city, would it be inconsistent 
with their doctrine of parity to address this communication to a 
particular individual, most distinguished for his age, talents, piety. 



286 LETTER III. 

and influence, to be by him imparted to the rest of his brethren ? 
Nay, is not this, in all Presbyterian, as well as other countries, 
the ordinary method of proceeding ? When the clergy of any town 
or district convene for mutual consultation, does their assembling 
in the house of some aged and venerable brother in the ministry 
constitute that brother their bishop, in the episcopal sense of the 
word ? To propose questions of this kind seriously is little short of 
an insult to the understanding of the reader. Do not facts of the 
very kind related of James, happen every day to Presbyterian 
ministers? When gentlemen who would be thought to argue, and 
not to trijie, condescend to amuse their readers with representations 
of this kind, under the garb of reasoning, it is really difficult to 
answer them in the language of respect or gravity. 

But the fathers, it seems, assert that James was bishop of 
Jerusalem. Admitting this fact; and admitting, also, that there 
were no circumstances tending to invalidate their testimony ; to 
what does it amount ? Why, simply, that James was one of the 
clergy, perhaps the senior clergyman of the church of Jerusalem, 
and probably the most conspicuous and eminent of them all. For 
let it never be forgotten that our episcopal brethren themselves 
acknowledge, that the title of bishop was applied in the apostles' 
days, and for some time afterwards, to the pastors of single con- 
gregations, and of course that this terra alone decides nothing in 
their favour. But let us sift this matter a little. Hegesippus is 
quoted by Eusebius as relating, that " James, the brother of our 
Lord, undertook, together with the apostles, the government of 
the church of Jerusalem,^'* This is the earliest writer that is 
brought to testify directly on the subject; and he declares that 
James presided over the church in Jerusalem in conjunction with 
the other apostles. He says, indeed, a little before, that the 
bishoprick oi Jerusalem was given to James by the apostles, but 
when we come to compare the two passages, and to interpret the 
one by the other, the whole testimony of this writer will be found 
perfectly equivocal. Some of the later fathers, also, following 
Hegesippus, speak oi James as bishop oi Jerusalem ; but do they 
tell us in what sense they employ this title ? That the apostles and 
primitive Christians sometimes employed it in a sense different from 

* Eccles. Hist. Lib. ii. Cap, 23. 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 287 

that which is adopted by our episcopal brethren, is confessed on 
all hands. And that these early writers, when they speak of 
James as bishop of Jerusalem, mean to say that he was a prelate, 
a bishop, in the modern and perverted sense of the term, is what 
we confidently call in question, and what Dr. Bowden, with all his 
brethren to aid him, cannot prove. I know that the learned pro- 
fessor loses all patience at intimations of this kind ; but it is by no 
means the first time that a man has been provoked by a demand 
of proof, when he had nothing but assertion to produce. 

But the most wonderful part of the story is, that Dr. Bowden 
produces Calvin as a witness in support of the episcopal dignity 
oi James, On this point he speaks in the following terms : " So 
" evident is it, that James was bishop of Jerusalem, that even 
" Calvin thinks it highly probable that he was governor of that 
" church. * When, says Calvin, the question is concerning dignity, 
" it is wonderful James should be preferred before Feter. Perhaps 
" it was because he was prefect of the church of Jerusalem.' In 
" Galat. c. II. v. 9. Calvin did not choose to speak plainer ; for that 
" would have been in direct contravention to his ecclesiastical regi- 
" men." i. p. 346. 

The moment I cast ray eye on this quotation from Calvin, I 
took for granted that something had been kept back, which, if 
produced, would turn the tables on the professor. And this accord- 
ingly proves to be the case. The passage, as it really stands in 
Calvin, is as follows ; " The apostle speaks of their {James, 
" Cephas, and John,) seeming to he pillars, not by way of contempt, 
" but he repeats a common sentiment. " Because from this it 
" follows, that what they did, ought not to be lightly rejected. When 
" the question is concerning dignity, it is wonderful that James 
" should be preferred to Feter. Perhaps this was done because he 
** yfdiS president of the church oi Jerusalem. With respect to the 
" word pillar, we know, that, in the very nature of things, those 
" who excel others in talents, in prudence, or in other endowments, 
*' must also be superior in authority. In the church of God it is a 
*< fact, that in proportion as any one is strong in grace in the same 
" proportion is honour due to him. It is ingratitude, nay, it is 
" impiety, not to do homage to the Spirit of God wherever he 
" appears in his gifts. And further, as the people of a church can- 
^< not do without a pastor, so each particular assembly of pastors 



288 LETTER 111. 

^' stands in need of some one to be moderator. But let it be always 
" understood, that he who is first of all should be as a servant 
" according to Matthew 23. 11." 

Where is the testimony from Calvin now ? The truth is, the 
whole passage, like tenor of all Calvin^s writings, is decidedly 
anti-prelatical. That great reformer, as will be more fully seen 
hereafter, believed in no authority of one minister over another, 
as having existed in the primitive church, but a moderatorsMpj 
either occasional or standing, for the maintenance of order. 

This is not the only instance in which Dr. Bowden entirely per- 
verts the language of Calvin, and represents him as delivering 
opinions directly opposite to those which he really does deliver. 
Of this, more in a future letter, in which the writings of Calvin, so 
far as they relate to episcopacy, will be particularly considered. 
In the mean time I cannot forbear to notice a single specimen, so 
gross and remarkable, that I could scarcely credit the testimony of 
my own senses when I found it advanced by both my opponents, 
not only with confidence, but even with sarcastic and reproachful 
exultation, as a great concession frora the reformer of Geneva in 
their favour. 

In his commentary on Titus i. 5. Calvin speaks largely of the 
mission of that evangelist to the churches of Crete, Dr. Bowden 
and Mr. How wish to persuade their readers, that, in these remarks, 
he fairly gives up the point that Titus was a diocesan bishop, or 
prelate. Accordingly they both represent him as saying — " Hence 
" we learn that there was not any equality among the ministers of 
" the church, but that one was placed over the rest in authority and 
" counsel." On this pretended quotation from Calvin, Mr. How 
observes, " Here the divine institution of superior and inferior 
" grades of ministers, is asserted in unqualified terms.'' p. 63. Dr. 
Bowden quotes the passage from Calvin, exactly in the same man- 
ner, and makes precisely the same use of it with Mr. How. 

You will, no doubt, be filled with astonishment, my brethren, 
to find that the passage from which these gentlemen profess to 
make this quotation, is in fact as follows : " Presbyters, or elders, 
" it is well known, are not so denominated on account of their age, 
" since young men are sometimes chosen to this office, as for in- 
" stance, Timothy ; but it has ever been customary, in all languages, 
" to apply this title, as a term of honour, to all rulers. And, as 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 289 

« we gather from the first epistle to Timothy that there were two 
" kinds of elders ; so here the context shows that no other than 
<• teaching elders are to be understood ; that is, those who were 
« ordained to teach ; because the same persons are presently call- 
« ed bishops. It may be objected that too much power seems to 
" be given to Titus, when the apostle commands him to appoint 
« ministers over all the churches. This, it may be said, is little 
« less than kingly power; for, on this plan, the right of choice is 
« taken away from the particular churches, and the right of judging 
" in the case from the college of pastors ; and this would be to 
« profane the whole of the sacred discipline of the church. But 
" the answer is easy. Every thing was not intrusted to the will of 
" Titus as an individual, nor was he allowed to impose such bi- 
" shops on the churches, as he pleased : but he was commanded to 
" preside in the elections as moderator, as it is necessary for some 
" one to do. This is a mode of speaking exceedingly common. 
<^ Thus a consul, or regent, or dictator, is said to create consuls 
" because he convenes assemblies for the purpose of making choice 
** of them. So also Luke uses the same mode of speaking concern- 
" ing Paul and J^arnabas in the Acts of the Apostles; not that 
'" they alone authoritatively appointed pastors over the churches, 
<* without their being tried or approved ; but they ordained suita- 
" ble men, who had been elected or chosen by the people We 
" learn also from this place, that there was not then such an equali- 
" ty among the ministers of the church, but that some one might 
^^ preside in authority and counsel. This, however, was nothing 
" like the tyrannical and unscriptural prelacy which reigns in the 
" papacy.* The plan of the apostles was extremely different." 

Here is not only a passage taken out of its connexion, and inter- 
preted in a sense diametrically opposite to the whole scope and 
strain of the writer ; but, what is much worse, the passage itself is 
mistranslated, and made to speak a language essentially different 
from the original. Mr. How may possibly plead that he never saw 
the original ; that he quoted entirely on the authority of some other 
person. But Dr. Bowden cannot make the same plea. He inserts 
in the margin the very words which he mistranslates and perverts! 

* Here Calvin not only represents prelacy as a tyrannical and unscrip- 
tural system, but evidently considers it as a part of the corruptions of 
popery, 

2 O 



290 LETTER III. 

What are we to think of such a fact ? Is Dr. B. unable to translate 
a plain piece of Latin ? or did he design to deceive ? He may choose 
which alternative he pleases. 

Dr. Bowden thinks me inconsistent with myself in demanding 
decided scriptural warrant, din6.'m maintaining the sufficiency of 
Scripture to direct us on the subject of ecclesiastical order ; while, 
at the same time, I acknowledge that there are no formal or expli- 
cit decisions delivered on this subject, either by Christ or his apos- 
tles. But where is the inconsistency here ? Do I not maintain that, 
although the scriptures present no formal or explicit decisions on 
this subject, yet we find in the New Testament, " a mode of 
" expression, and a number oi facts, from which we may, without 
" difficulty, ascertain the outlines of the apostolic plan of church 
"order?" And is not this " scriptural warrant?" Isitnot"c?e- 
" cided'* scriptural warrant, in the estimation of all those who con- 
sider the form of the apostolic church as a model intended for our 
imitation ? This is perfectly clear to every impartial mind : with 
others it is vain to reason. 

With respect to Dr. Bowden^s open declaration, that the scrip- 
tures, taken alone, are not a sufficient guide on this subject ; that 
we cannot " stir a step" in the controversy, to any purpose, without 
the aid of the fathers 5 and even that we cannot establish the genu- 
ineness and authenticity of the scriptures themselves, without the 
writings of the fathers; I can only say, that I consider it as a decla- 
ration equally unworthy of his character as a divine, and as a Chris- 
tian. Has Dr. Bowden no evidence that the scriptures are from 
God, but what ihe fathers say ? Then he is exceedingly to be pi- 
tied ; for his hope rests upon a most precarious foundation. I bless 
God that much better judges have been of a different opinion. I 
bless God that the greatest ornaments of his own church, from 
Cranmer, Lati?ner, and Ridley, to the present day, have considered 
the internal evidence of the scriptures as the strongest, the best, 
and most precious of all. The testimony of the fathers, indeed, 
has its use ; but to place it in the point of light in which Dr. Bow- 
den does, and to lay so much stress upon it as he avows a disposi- 
tion to do, is really extraordinary conduct for a protestant minister 
of the gospel ! 

The doctrine of our Confession of Faith is full and explicit on 
this subject. " We may be moved and induced by the testimony 



TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 291 

" of the church, to an high and reverend esteem for the Holy Scrip- 
** ture : And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doc- 
" trine^ the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the 
" scope of the whole, the full discovery it makes of the only way 
" of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, 
" and the tx\\\vQ perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth 
" abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God. Yet, notwith- 
" standing, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, 
" and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the 
" Holy Spirit, bearing witness, by and with the word in our hearts. 
" The whole council of God concerning all things necessary for 
" his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expresslj^ 
" set down in scripture, or, by good and necessary consequence, 
" may be deduced from scripture 5 unto which nothing, at any 
" time, is to be added, whether by new revelations, or by the spirit 
" and traditions of men." chap. i. This is the doctrine of all the 
reformed churches. The doctrine of the latter clause, is explicitly 
recognized in the Vlth article of Dr. Bowden's own church, which, 
in my opinion, he misunderstands and perverts. " Holy Scripture 
" eontaineth all things necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever 
" is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be re- 
" quired of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the 
" faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." This is 
the rock on which we stand. As long as we can show, and while 
the Bible lasts I am sure we shall always be able to show, that 
Presbyterian government was the apostolic model of church order, 
we may stand unmoved at all opposite testimony, however plausi- 
ble in its nature, and however confidently adduced. 



( 292 ) 



tETTER IV. 



TESTIMONY IN FAVOUR OF THE OFFICE OF RULING ELDER. 



CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

In several passages in my former letters, 1 adverted to the office 
of ruling elder , and offered some considerations to show that it was 
instituted in the primitive church. Dr. Bowdetiy perceiving that 
this position, if maintained,|would prove fatal to his cause, has 
endeavoured, with all his force, to drive me from it, and to per- 
suade his readers, that no such officer was known in the christian 
church until modern times. As this will hereafter appear to be a 
question of great importance, not only on account of the office 
itself, but also on account of its close connexion with the doctrine 
of ministerial parity, I hope you will pardon me for discussing it 
more carefully, and at greater length than I was able to do in ray 
former volume. 

There is, independent of all historical testimony, strong presump- 
tive evidence that such an office^must have been instituted by the 
apostles. There is a demand^ little short of absolute necessity, that 
one or more persons, under some name, to perform the duties of 
ruling elders, should be appointed in every well ordered congre- 
gation. The minister, whether he be called pastor, bishop, rector, 
or by whatever title, cannot individually perform all the duties 
which are included in maintaining government and discipline in the 
church, as well as ministering in the word and sacraments. He 
cannot be every where, or know every thing. He must have a 
number of grave. Judicious, and pious persons, who shall assist 



RULING ELDERS. 293 

him with information and counsel ; whose official duty it shall be to 
aid him in overseeing, regulating, and edifying the church. We can 
hardly have a better comment on these remarks, than the practice 
of those churches which reject ruling elders. Our episcopal 
brethren reject them ; but they are obliged to have their vestry- 
men and church-wardens, who perform the duties belonging to such 
elders. Ow): independent brethren also reject this class of church 
officers ; but they too are forced to resort to a committee, who 
attend to the numberless details of parochial duty, which the minis- 
ters cannot perform. They can scarcely take a single step without 
having mfact, though not in name, precisely such officers as we 
recognise under the scriptural appellation of elders. Now, is it 
probable, is it credible, that the apostles, acting under the inspira- 
tion of Christ, the king and head of the church, should entirely over- 
look this necessity, and make no provision for it ? It is not credi- 
ble. We must, then, either suppose that some such officers as those 
in question were appointed by the apostles, or that means, acknow- 
ledged by the practice of all, to be indispensable in conducting the 
affairs of the church, were forgotten or neglected. 

Again ; Dr. Bowden acknowledges, and with perfect correct- 
ness, that there were' such officers in the Jewish synagogue. 
" The elders,'^ says he, " of the Jewish synagogue corresponded 
with the lay-elders of your (the Presbyterian) church." Letters, 
Vol. L 330. But if the Christian church was organized after the 
model of the synagogue, a fact of which there is the fullest evi- 
dence, then we may presume that similar elders were included in 
this organization. This class of officers, so familiar to every Jew, 
and so indispensable in his eyes to the maintenance of ecclesiastical 
government and order, would, by no means, be likely to be left 
out, when every other was notoriously retained. 

But we have better evidence. The New Testament makes 
express mention of such elders. There is undoubtedly a reference 
to them in 1 Timothy, v. 17. Let the elders that rule well he 
counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in 
the word and doctrine. Every man of plain good sense, who had 
never heard of any controversy on the subject, would conclude, on 
reading this passage, that, when it was written, there were two 
kinds of elders, one whose duty it was to labour in the word and 
doctrine, and anotlter who did not thus labour, but only ruled in 



294 LETTER IV. 

the church ; the apostle says, elders that rule well are worthy of 
double honour, but especially those who labour in the word and 
doctrine. Now if we suppose that there was only one kind of 
elders then in the church, and that they were all teachers or 
labourers in the word, we must make the inspired writer speak a 
language utterly unworthy of his character. There was, therefore, 
a class of elders in the apostolic church, who did not preach, nor 
administer sacraments, but assisted in government. These, by 
whatever name they may be called, were precisely the same with 
those officers which we denominate ruling elders. 

For this construction of the passage. Dr. Whitaker, a zealous 
and learned episcopal divine, and professor of divinity in the 
university of Cambridge, zealously contends. And though his 
declaration on the subject was quoted in my former letters, I can- 
not help repeating it here. " By these words," says he, " the 
^^ apostle evidently distinguishes between the bishops and the 
" inspectors of the church. If all who rule well be worthy of 
'^ double honour, especially they who labour in the word and 
<^ doctrine, it is plain there were some who did not so labour 5 for 
" if all had been of this description, the meaning would have been 
" absurd ; but the word especially points out a difference. If I 
" should say, that all who study well at the university are worthy 
" of double honour, especially they who labour in the study of 
" theology, I must either mean that all do not apply themselves 
" to the study of theology, or I should speak nonsense. Where- 
" fore I confess that to be the most genuine sense by which pastors 
" and teachers are distinguished from those who only govern." 
— Prcelect. ap. Didioclav.p. 68 1 . Equally to our purpose is the opi- 
nion of that acute and learned episcopal divine. Dr. Whitby, in 
his note on this passage, which was also in part before quoted. 
" The elders of the Jews," says he, " were of two sorts ; 1st. 
" Such as governed in the synagogue 5 and 2dly. Such as minis- 
" tered in reading and expounding their scriptures and traditions, 
" and from them pronouncing what did bind or loose, or what was 
" forbidden, and what was lawful to be done. For when, partly 
^* by their captivity, and partly through increase and.traffick, they 
" were dispersed in considerable bodies through divers regions of 
" the world, it was necessary that they should haw e governors or 
" magistrates, to keep them in their duty, and judge of criminal 



RULING ELDERS. 295 

" causes ; and also rabbins to teach them the law, and the tradi- 
" tions of their fathers. Thejirst were ordained adjudicandum, 
^'sednon ad docendum de Ileitis et vetitis, i. e. to judge and 
" govern, but not to teach : The second, ad docendum, sednon ad 
^^ judicandum, i. e. to teach, but not to judge or govern. And 
" these the apostle here declares to be the most honourable and 
" worthy of the chiefest reward. Accordingly, the apostle, reck- 
" oning up the offices God had appointed in the church, places .^ 
" teachers before governments. 1 Corin. xii. 28." 

I am aware that several glosses have been adopted to set aside 
the testimony of this text in favour of ruling elders. To enumerate 
and expose them would be a waste of time and patience. It is 
sufficient to say, that none of them possess any real force, and 
scarcely any of them even plausibility. And you will hereafter 
find, that, notwithstanding all these glosses, the text in question 
has been considered as conclusive in support of our doctrine, by 
some of the best judges, and by the great body of orthodox Chris- 
tians, from the apostles to the present day. 

The next passage of scripture which affords a warrant for the 
office of ruling elder is to be found in Romans xii, 6, 7? 8. 
Having then gifts, differing according to the grace given to us j 
whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of 
faith ; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering ; or he that 
teacheth, on teaching ; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation : 
he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, 
with diligence ; he that showeth mercy, toith cheerfulness. With 
this passage may be connected another, of similar character, and 
to be interpreted on the same principles. I mean the following 
from 1 Corinthians xii. 28. God hath set some in the church, 
first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that 
miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities 
of tongues. In both these passages, there is a reference to the 
different offices and gifts bestowed on the church, by her divine 
king and head ; in both of them there is a plain designation of an 
office for ruling or government, distinct from that of teaching, 
and in both, also, this office evidently has a place assigned to it 
beloio that of pastors and teachers. This office, by whatever name 
it may be called, and however its character may be disguised by 



296 LETTER IV. 

ingenuity, is, to all intents and purposes, the same with that 
which Presbyterians distinguished by the tide o( ruling elder. 

Let us now proceed to inquire what the fathers say concerning 
this class of church officers. And here, for the sake of presenting 
a connected view of the argument, I shall incorporate a portion of 
the evidence adduced in my former letters, with such further tes- 
timonies as I find to my purpose. 

In the Gesta Purgationis CcBciliani et Felicis,* we meet with 
the following enumeration of church officers, Presbyteri, Diacones 
et Seniores, i. e. " The presbyters, the deacons and elders/' And 
a little after it is added — " Adhihite conclericos et seniores plehis, 
" ecclesiasticos viros, et inqnirant diligenter quae sint istce dissen- 
" tiones,^' i. e. " call the fellow-clergymen, and elders of the 
" people, ecclesiastical men, and let them inquire diligently what 
*^ are these dissentions." In that assembly, likewise, several letters 
were produced and read ; one addressed Clero et Senioribus, i. e. 
" to the clergyman and the elders ;" and another, Clericis et 
SenioribuSy i. e. " to the clergymen and the elders." Now I ask, 
what can this language mean ? Here is a class of men, expressly 
called ecclesiastical men, or church officers, who are styled elders, 
and yet distinguished from the clergy, with whom, at the same 
time; they meet, and officially transact business. If these be not 
the elde?^s of whom we are in search, we may give up all the rules 
of evidence. 

Cyprian, in bis 29th epistle, directed " To his brethren, the 
presbyters and deacons,'' expresses himself in the following 
terms : 

" You are to take notice that I have ordained Saturus a reader, 
" and the confessor Opiatus, a subdeacon ; whom we had all 
" before agreed to place in the rank and degree next to that of the 
" clergy. Upon Easter day, we made one or two trials of Saturus, 
" in reading, when we were approving our readers before the 
^ teaching presbyters ; and then appointed Optatus from among 
" the readers, to be a teacher of the hearers." On this passage 
the Rev. Mr. Marshall, the episcopal translator and commentator 

* See these Gesta, &c. preserved at the end of Optatus, by Mbaspi- 
nasus, his commentator. 



RULING ELDERS. 297 

of Cyprian, remarks — " It is hence, 1 think, apparent, that all 
'* presbyters were not teachers, but assisted the bishop in other 
" parts of his office. " And bishop Fell, another editor and com- 
mentator on Cyprian, remarks on the same passage in the 
following words : " Inter Presbyteros rectores et doctores olim 
" distinxisse videter divus Paulas, 1 Tim. v. 17." i. e. " St. Paul 
'* appears to have made a distinction, in ancient times, between 
" teachi?ig dind riding elders, in 1 Timothy v. 17." Here two 
learned episcopal divines explicitly acknowledge the distinction 
between teaching and ruling elders, in the primitive church 5 and 
one of them, an eminent bishop, not only allows that Cyprian 
referred to this distinction, but also quotes as an authority for it, 
the principal text which Presbyterians adduce for the same 
purpose." 

Hilary (frequently called Ambrose^ who lived in the 4th centu- 
ry, in his explication of 1 Timothy v. 1. has the following passage : 
" For, indeed, among all nations, old age is honourable. Hence 
" it is that the synagogue, and afterwards the church, had elders, 
" without whose counsel nothing was done in the church 5 which 
" by what negligence it grew into disuse I know not, unless, per- 
" haps, by the sloth, or rather by the pride of the teachers, while 
" they alone wished to appear something." It is scarcely credible 
to what a miserable expedient Dr. Bowden resorts to set aside the 
force of this testimony. He insists upon it that the pious father 
only meant to say, that *^ in former times the elderly men of the 
" church used to be consulted, which custom is now laid aside." 
And again — " He says nothing more than that it was formerly 
" customary to consult the a^ec?; no doubt in difficult situations 
" of the church, which frequently occurred in the first three 
*' centuries, while persecution lasted." It is difficult to answer 
suggestions of this kind in grave or respectful language. Can any 
man in his senses believe that Hilary only designed to inform his 
readers that in the Jewish synagogues there were persons who had 
attained a considerable age ; that this is also the case in the Chris- 
tian church ; and that, in difficult cases, these aged persons were 
consulted ? This would have been a sage remark indeed ! Was 
there ever a community, ecclesiastical or civil, which did not in- 
clude some aged persons ? Or was there ever a state of society, or 
an age of the world, in which the practice of consulting the aged 
2 P 



29S LETTER IV. 

had fallen into disuse? I am really ashamed of such an attempt, on 
the part of a grave and " aged" divine, to pervert a passage which 
could scarcely have been made plainer. Hilary says that, "in 
" the synagogue, and afterwards in the cJiurch, there were certain 
" seniors or elders, without whose counsel nothing was done in the 
"church." If this language does not describe a class of persons, 
who held an q^'czaZ station, and whose official daty it was to aid by 
their counsel in the government of the church, then we may despair 
of attaching any definite meaning to words. But what decides the 
question is, as he further states, that in the fourth century, this plan 
of having elders, to assist by their counsel in the government of the 
church, had chiefly grown into disuse. Had the christian church 
become so corrupt, in a little more than three centuries from its 
commencement, as to thrust all aged persons out of its communion ? 
Or, if the more venerable and aged were suffered to remain, were 
they never more consulted in cases of difficulty and danger? 
Besides, if there was no intention to distinguish between teaching 
and ruling elders, why is it said that these seniors or elders were 
laid aside " on account of the sloth, or rather the pride of the 
" teachers, who alone wished to be something ?'' I can very well 
conceive that both the pride and the sloth of the teaching elders, 
should render them willing to get rid of a bench of officers, of 
equal power with themselves in the government of the church, and 
able to control their wishes in cases of discipline ; but I cannot 
conceive why either sloth or pride should prefer consulting the 
young, rather than the aged, on the affairs of the church. But 
you will scarcely pardon me for detaining you so long with the 
refutation of reasonings so totally unworthy of notice. 

Augustine, bishop oi Hippo, who also lived in theyowr^/t century, 
often refers to this class of officers in his writings. Thus, in his 
work. Contra Crcscon, lib. iii. cap. 56. he speaks of PeregrinuSj 
Presbyter, et Seniores Musticance regionis, i. e. " Peregrine, the 
" presbyter, and the elders of the Mustacan district." And again, 
he addresses one of his epistles to his church at Hippo, \epist, isrj 
Dilectissimis fratribus, Clero, Senioribus et universes pkbi 
ecclesicB Hipponensis. i. e. " To the beloved brethren, the 
clergyman, the elders, and all the people of the church at Hippo.^^ 
There were some elders, then, in the days of Augustine, who were 
not clergymen, i. e. lay-elders. It would be easy to produce, from 



RULING ELDERS. 099 

the same writer, a number of other quotations equally to our pur- 
pose. But Dr. Boicden has rendered this unnecessary, by making 
an explicit acknowledgment, that Augustine repeatedly mentions 
these seniors or elders as belonging to other churches as well as his 
own. And to what expedient do you suppose the Doctor resorts to 
avoid the consequence of this acknowledgment ? Why, he gravely 
tells us, that he fully believes, N^^ith the " learned Bingham," that 
there were, within the first three or four centuries, a class of 
aged and respectable men in the church, who were styled seniors 
or elders, and whose official duty it was to assist in promoting the 
interests of the church : That some of these were called Seniores 
EcclesicBf i. e. elders of the church, who were chosen to assist the 
bishop, with their advice and counsel in the weighty affairs of the 
church : and that another class were called Seniores Ecclesiastici, 
i. e. ecclesiastical elders, who were sometimes entrusted with the 
utensils, treasures, and outward affairs of the church ; but had no 
share in the administration of discipline. These he compares with 
the vestrymen and church loardens, v/hich are generally found in 
episcopal churches. Vol. I. p. 205 — 207. Now, I ask, what mate- 
rial difference can any man see between the seniores Ecclesice, 
which Dr. Bowden acknowledges tq have existed in the primitive 
church, and the ruling elders of the Presbyterian church ? Our 
elders are appointed to assist the bishop of each particular church 
with their counsel, in conducting the spiritual concerns of the 
church. And is not this precisely the duty which he assigns to 
the seniores ecclesice of the primitive church ? It is really laughable 
to find Dr. B. conceding, in substance, all that we desire ; and 
yet, on account of some petty points of difference, which are too 
frivolous to be noticed, and which do not affect the main question, 
insisting that there is nothing like our ruling elders to be found in 
primitive times! 

Though the readers of my former volume, know that I have no 
great respect for the authority of the work generally styled Apos- 
tolic Constitutions; yet many episcopal writers have expressed 
very high regard for this work, and entire confidence in its authen- 
ticity. And, although, when it claims apostolic origin, it is to be 
rejected as an " impudent forgery ;" yet there is a high degree of 
probability that it was composed, by different hands, between the 
second andJiftJi centuries. The following quotation from it will, 



300 LETTER JV. 

therefore, have some weight. " To presbyters also, when they 
" labour in teachings let a double portion be assigned." 11. 28. 
Here is, obviously, a distinction between elders who are employed 
in teachings and those who are not so employed. How the others 
were employed, indeed, is not said ; but teaching made no part of 
their official duty. AVe may take for granted their duty was to 
assist in the other spiritual concerns of the church, viz. in maintain- 
ing good order and discipline. This is precisely the distinction 
which we make, and which we are confident was made in the primi- 
tive church. 

It would be easy to produce many more quotations from other 
early writers, which ascertain the existence of these elders, within 
the first three or four centuries of the Christian sera. But it is 
needless. Our opponents acknowledge the fact. Bishop Taylor, 
a great authority with them, among others, explicitly grants,* that 
a class of men, under the name of seniors or elders^ distinguished 
from clergymen, are mentioned by a number of early writers, as 
having existed in the church at an early period, and as holding in 
it some kind of official station. The only question is, what hind of 
elders they were ? These gentlemen exceedingly dislike the idea of 
their being such elders as ar^ found in the Presbyterian church, 
and assert that they were not • but really they offer nothing against 
it that deserves the name even of a plausible argument. 

In ray former 'letters, in exhibiting the testimony usually pro- 
duced from Ignatius, I spoke of the presbyters or elders so fre- 
quently mentioned by that father, in the following terms. " Some 
" of these elders were pi'obahly ordained to the work of the minis- 
" try, and of course, empowered to preach and administer ordi- 
" nances : but this is not certain. They might all have been 
" ruling elders for ought that appears to the contrary. For in all 
" these epistles, it is no where said that they either preached or 
" dispensed the sacraments. It cannot be shown, then, that Igna- 
" tiusy by his presbyters and presbytery, or eldership, means any 
" thing else than a bench of ruling elders in each church." p. 96. 
This suggestion Dr. Bowden not only opposes with much zeal, but 
he also endeavours to cover it with ridicule, as perfectly frivolous 

* I think this concession is to be found in his Episcopacy Asserted. That 
it is to be found in one of his works, I am certain 



RULING ELDERS. 301 

and improbable. So far as he 7'easons on the point, the arguments 
which he employs are two. The Jlrst is, that " there is no proof 
'^ whatever that there ever was such an order of men in the church 
" as ruling elders." Of the force of this argument you will be able 
to judge, after reading what has been advanced, and what is yet to 
come in proof of the apostolic institution of this class of officers. 
The second argument, is that " the epistles of Ignatius are totally 
" inconsistent with such a notion." Now, I think, in direct opposi- 
tion to Dr. B. that the epistles of Ignatius are strongly in favour of 
this "notion." When that father says, "It is not lawful, without 
" the bishop, either to baptize, or to celebrate the holy communion," 
it is evident that his presbyters could not have been the same with 
those who bear that title in modern episcopal churches, who in vir- 
tue of their original commission, and without any subsequent per- 
mission of the bishop, are empowered, at all times, and in all places, 
when called upon, to administer both baptism and the Lord's supper. 
Again ; when Ignatius says, " Let that eucharist be looked upon 
" as valid, which is either offered by the bishop, or by him to whom 
" the bishop has given his consent ;" Dr. Bowden chooses to take 
for granted that the person to whom the bishop might give his con- 
sent, and who, with that consent, might dispense the eucharist, was 
one o{ ihe presbrjters whom J^na^fws distinguishes from the bishop. 
But this is not said by Ignatius ; he might mean the bishop of some 
neighbouring congregation. There is not a single instance in which 
the pious father represents his presbyters as, in fact, preaching or 
administering sacraments. But even supposing his presbyters to be 
ruling elders, and supposing him to mean, that they, with the bi- 
shop's (or pastor's) leave, might administer both sacraments 5 this 
would only show that Ignatius was in an error, as Tertullian was 
after him, who, in his work de Baptismo, after asserting that the 
administration of baptism was appropriated to the office of bishop, 
does not scruple to say, that even a layman may baptize with the 
bishop's leave. There is, then, nothing in the epistles of Ignatius 
at all inconsistent with the supposition that a portion, or even the 
whole of his presbyters were ruling elders, whose official duty it 
was to assist the pastor in maintaining order and discipline in the 
church. 

It is no solid objection to this argument from the fathers, that they 



303 LETTER IV. 

sometimes mention these elders after the deacons, as if the former 
were inferior to the latter. Nothing can be inferred from a fact of 
this kind. Ignatius, speaking of the different classes of church offi- 
cers, expresses himself thus : " Let all reverence the deacons as 
" Jesus Christ ; and the bishop as the father ; and the -presbyters 
" as the sanhedrim of God, and college of the apostles." But, not- 
withstanding the extravagance and impiety of this exhortation, did 
any one ever suppose that Ignatius designed to represent deacons 
as a higher order than bisJiops ? In like manner, Clemens Alexan- 
drinus speaks of ^^ presbi/te?^Sj bisJiops, and deacons;^' but who- 
ever dreamed that any inference with respect to the order of authori- 
ty was to be drawn from this arrangement? Again; Dr. Boioden 
objects, that " Ignatius makes the deacons a branch of the minis- 
" tri/ ; but every branch of the ministry had authority Xo preach; 
" consequently the deacons, instead of being inferior to the ruling 
" elders, must have been superior to them." This objection is of 
as little force as the last. It is notorious that the word ministry, 
both in scripture and the writings of the fathers, is by no means 
confined to the clergy, but is frequently employed to express. a»y 
kind of ojicial service rendered to the church. To produce in- 
stances in support of this position is needless. Every well inform- 
ed divine knows it to be so. When, therefore, the word ministry, 
unaccompanied with any distinctive epithet, .is applied either to 
elders or deacons, it no more implies a power to preach, or admi- 
nister sealing ordinances, nor does it throw any more light on the 
point of order and precedence, than the general word officer. 

But the truth is, deacons being called ministers or even clergy- 
men, does not militate in the least, against our view of their office. 
It is well known, as was stated in a former letter, that in the third 
and fourth centuries, all classes of church oflLicers,even readers and 
acolytlis, as well as elders and deacons, were numbered among the 
clergy, that is, as the term obviously imports, those who were set 
apart to spiritual or sacred work. 

Having seen that both scripture and the fathers afford a clear 
warrant for the office of ruling elders in the church ; let us next 
inquire whether the reformers and other distinguished witnesses 
for the truth, in different ages and countries, declared^or or against 
this ofliice. I know that the authority of the reformers is not to 



RULING ELDERS. 303 

be considered, any more than that of the fathers^ as a rule either 
of faith or practice ; but when we recollect the great talents, the 
profound learning, the fervent piety, and the eminent services of 
many of those distinguished men, in clearing away the errors of 
popery, and restoring the faith and order of the primitive church 
we cannot fail to acknowledge that their opinions and decisions are 
worthy of high regard. It is worth while, therefore, to inquire what 
those opinions and decisions were, with respect to the question 
before us. 

John Paz^ifPemw, the celebrated historian of the Waldenses, and 
who was himself one of the ministers of that people, in a number 
of places recognises the office of lading elder as retained in their 
churches. He expressly and repeatedly asserts, that the synods of 
the Waldenses, long before the time of Luther^ were composed of 
ministers and elders.^ 

The same writer tells us, that, in the year 1467, the Hussites 
being engaged in reforming and separating their churches from the 
church of Ro?ne, understood that there were some churches of the 
ancient Waldenses \n Austria, in which the purity of the gospel was 
retained, and in which there were many eminent pastors. In order 
to ascertain the truth of this account, they (the Hussites,) sent two 
of their ministers with two elders to inquire into, and know what 
those flocks or congregations were.t 

The same historian, in the same work, speaks of" the ministers 
" and elders of the Bohemian churches.|" 

The testimony of Ferrin is supported by that of Gillis, another 
historian of the Waldenses, and also one of their pastors. In the 
Confession of Faith § of that people, inserted at length in the 
" addition" to his work, it is declared, (p. 490. Art. 31.) that " It 
** is necessary for the church to have j^as^ors to preach God's word, 
" to administer the sacraments, and to watch over the sheep of 
" Jesus Christ; and also elders and deacons, accordingto the rules 

* Hist, of the old Waldenses, part ii. Book ii. chap. 4. 
f Ibid. chap. 10. 
4: Ibid, chap. 9. 

§ This confession, Gillis expressly declares to have been the confession 
of the ancient, as well as the modern Waldenses. 



304 LETTER IV. 

" of good and holy church discipline, and the practice of the 
" 'primitive church.^' 

Here, then, is direct and unquestionable testimony that the 
Waldensesj the Hussites, and the Bohemian Brethren, had ruling 
elders in their churches long before Calvin was born. Yet Cal- 
vin, we are gravely told by Dr. Boioden and his friends, was the 
inventor of this class of church officers ! I cannot help thinking 
that a " learned man," and a *^ scholar," (a character which Dr. 
B. often impliedly assumes to himself) ought to have taken care 
to be better informed before he ventured to make such an asser- 
tion. 

But we have still more pointed evidence that the churches which 
ecclesiastical historians have generally distinguished by the title of 
the Bohemian Brethren, and which flourished before the time of 
Luther, bore their testimony in favour of the office of riding elder, 
by retaining it, amidst all the degeneracy of the times. This fact 
is attested by Martin Bucer, a learned Lutheran divine, whose 
fame induced archbishop Cranmer to invite him to England, 
where he received preferment and patronage, and was held in 
high estimation. He speaks of it in the following terras : 

" The Bohemian Brethren, who published a confession of 
" their faith in the year 1535, with a preface by Luther, and who 
" almost alone preserved in the world the purity of the doctrine, 
" and the vigour of the discipline of Christ, observed an excellent 
^^ rule, for which we are compelled to give them credit, and espe- 
^^ cially to praise that God who thus wrought by them ; notwith- 
" standing those brethren are preposterously despised by some 
" learned men. The rule w hich they observed was this : besides 
" ministers of the word and sacraments, they had, in each church, 
" a bench or college of men excelling in gravity and prudence, who 
" performed the duties of admonishing and correcting offenders 
" composing differences, and judicially deciding in cases of dispute. 
" Of this kind of elders, Hilary (Ambrose) wrote, when he said, 
" Therefore the synagogue, and afterwards the church had elders, 
" without whose counsel nothing was done."* 

*Scripta dtM Adversaria Latomi, &c. in Cap. De Eceles. Jluthoritai. p. 
159. 



RULING ELDERS. 305 

The celebrated Peter Martyr, a protestant divine of Italy, 
whose high reputation induced Edioard VL to invite him into 
England, where he was made professor of divinity at Oxford, and 
canon of Christ Church, speaks of ruling elders in the following 
decisive terms : " The church," (speaking of the primitive church) 
" had its elders, or if I may so speak, its senate, who consulted 
" about things that were for edification for the time being. Paul 
" describes this kind of ministry, not only in the 12th chapter of 
" the epistle to the Romans,hni also in the first epistle to Timot/iy, 
" where he thus writes, Let the elders that rule well he counted 
" worthy of double honour, especially those that labour in the 
" word and doctrine. Which words appear to me to signify, that 
" there were then some 'elders who taught and preached the word 
" of God ; and another class of elders who did not teach, but only 
" ruled in the church. Concerning these Ambrose speaks, when 
" he expounds this passage in Timothy. Nay, he inquires wheth- 
" er it was owing to the pride or the sloth of the sacerdotal order 
" that they had then almost ceased in the church."* 

In the Confession of Saxony , drawn up by Melancihon,m 1551, 
and subscribed by a large number of Lutheran churches, we find 
this class of church officers, recognized, and represented as in use 
in those churches. Speaking of the exercise of discipline, in its 
various parts, they say — " That these things may be done orderly, 
^^ there be also consistories appointed in our churchesP Of these 
consistories, ^\t principal members, it is well known, were ruling 
elders. 

That there were riding elders in the primitive church, is also 
explicitly granted by archbishop Whitgift, a warm and learned 
friend of diocesan episcopacy. " I know," says he, " that in the 
" primitive church, they had in every church certain seniors, to 
" whom the government of the congregation was committed ; but 
" that was before there was any Christian prince or magistrate 
" that openly professed the gospel ; and before there was any 
" church by public authority established." And again, " Both 
" the names and offices of seniors were extinguished before 
" Ambrose his time, as he himself doth testify, writing upon the 

* P, Martyris Loci Communes. Class IV. Cap. I. Sect. 2. 
2 Q 



306 LETTER IV. 

^^ffth of the first epistle to Timothy, Indeed, as Ambrose saith, 
" the synagogue^ and after the church, had se?i2or5, without whose 
" counsel nothing was done in the church ; but that was before 
" Ms time, and before there was any Christian magistrate, or any 
" church established."* 

Szegediii, a very eminent divine, of Hungary, contemporary 
with Luther, also speaks decidedly of the apostolic institution of 
ruling elders. The following passage is sufficient to exhibit his 
sentiments. " The ancient church had presbyters or elders, of 
" which the apostle speaks, 1 Corinth, 5. 4. And these elders 
" were of two kinds. One class of them preached the gospel, 
" administered the sacraments, and governed the church, the same 
" as bishops ; for bishops and presbyters are the same order. But 
" another class of elders consisted of grave and upright men, taken 
" from among the laity, who, together with the preaching elders 
" before mentioned, consulted respecting the affairs of the church, 
" and devoted their labour to admonishing, correcting, and taking 
" care of the flock of Christ."t 

Hieronymus Kromayer, a learned Lutheran divine, and professor 
of divinity in the university oiLeipsic, who lived in the age imme- 
diately following that of Luther, bears decided testimony to the 
apostolic institution oi ruling elders, " The title of bishop," says 
he, " takes its name from a Greek word, which signifies an over- 
** seer. This title differs from that of presbyter, because the lat- 
" ter is taken from age. Oi presbyters or elders, there were for- 
" merly two kinds, those who taught, and those who exercised the 
*^ office o{ rulers in the church. This is taught in 1 Timothy v. 17, 
" Let the elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double hon- 
" our, especially those who labour in the word and doctrine. The 
" latter were the same as our ministers, at present ; the former 
" were like the members of our consistories. Jerome tells us that 
" the practice of choosing one to preside over the rest, was brought 
" in as a remedy for schism ; so that a bishop is nothing more 
" than the first presbyter. This doctrine is very oflensive to the 
" papists ; but we have the word of God going before us, as a 

• Defence against Cartwright, p. 638. 651. 

t Szedigini Loci Communes, p. 197. Edit, quint, folio— Basil, 1608. 



RULING ELDERS. 307 

" light and a guide, and this plainly represents presbyters and 
" bishops as the same i/iing.^'* 

The learned Voetius, a Dutch divine of great eminence, also 
contends for the apostolic institution of ruling elders. He speaks 
of a number of popish writers, as particularly warm and zealous in 
their opposition to this class of church officers ; " Nor is this,'' says 
he, " any wonder, since nothing is more opposite to the papal 
" monarchy, and antichristian tyranny, than is the institution of 
*' ruling elders." Voetius is of the opinion that the church war- 
dens in the church of England are the " vestiges" of these " ruling 
seniors."! 

Ursinus, an eminent German divine, who lived about the same 
time with Luther, in enumerating the officers of the church, as laid 
down in the word of God, speaks of ruling elders and deacons. 
The former he defines to be officers " elected by the voice of the 
" church, to assist in conducting discipline, and to order a variety 
" of necessary matters in the church." And the latter as officers? 
" elected by the church, to take care of the poor, and to distribute 
« ato."| 

After this view of the opinions of some of the most distinguished 
reformers and others, in favour of the office of ruling elders, you 
will not" be surprised to hear, that the great body of the reformed 
churches adopted, and have always maintained, this class of officers. 
Instead of being confined, as Dr. Bowden and his friends seem to 
imagine, to Geneva and Scotland, they were generally introduced, 
with the reformation, by Lutherans as well as Calvinists / and are 
generally retained to the present* day, in almost ail the protestant 
churches, excepting that oi England. We have seen that the Wal- 
denses, the Hussites, and the Bohemian brethren had them long 
before Calvin was born. It is notorious that the reformed churches 
of Germany, France, Holland, &c. received this class of elders 
early, and expressly represented them in their public confessionsy 
as founded on the word of God. And it is a fact equally notorious, 

* Historia Eccksiastica Autore Hieronymo Eromayero, D. D. & S. S. 
T. P. in Acad. Lips. 4to. p. 59. 
f Polit. Eccles. par. ii. Lib. ii. tract. 3. cap. 4. sect. 1. 2. 
^ Corpus Doctrinse, par. lii. p. 721. 



308 LETTER IV. 

that the Lutherans^ as well as the Presbyterians in our own coun- 
try, have, at this hour, lay elders to assist in the government and 
discipline of the church. The truth is, that at the period of the 
reformation, three-fourths of the whole protesfant world declared in 
favour of this class of elders ; not merely as expedient, but as 
appointed in the apostoHc church, and as necessary to be restored. 
And to the present time a decided majority of protestants maintain 
the same opinion and practice. 

Many of the objections against ruling elders, on which my oppo- 
nents lay the greatest stress, are entirely groundless, and arise from 
a total want of acquaintance with the nature and duties of the 
office. Mr. How speaks of them as officers invested with " mere 
temporal functions." Now this is so far from being the case, that 
they are not invested with " temporal functions" at all. Their 
office and duties are purely spiritual. Dr. Kemp represents them 
as " unordained" officers, and expresses much astonishment that I 
should insist on the church having been organized after the model 
of the synagogue, since the elders of the synagogue were ordained, 
while he asserts that those of the Presbyterian church are not. 
This gentleman gives us to understand that he was bred a Presby- 
terian, and speaks of it as one of the advantages which he enjoys 
in conducting the controversy. But, truly, he discovers, on a 
variety of occasions, that he left our church without being acquaint- 
ed with even the elementary principles of its government. To 
prove this I need not go further than the case under consideration. 
The fact is, that in every regular Presbyterian church, ruling 
elders are always ordained ; sometimes with the imposition of 
hands, and sometimes without it. Both methods are in use, in 
diffiirent parts of Europe, as well as our own country. But an 
ordination of some kind is never omitted by^those who act regularly. 
Perhaps Dr. Kemp would say, that the imposition of hands is essen- 
tial to every ordination ; and that, as we ordain our ruling elders 
more frequently without this ceremony than with it, he is warranted 
in representing them generally as " unordained." If so, he is of 
a different mind from some of the most learned and pious bishops 
of the church of England, who have decided that it is not the 
formality of laying on hands which constitutes the essence of a 



RULING ELDERS. 309 

lawful vocation to office in the church; but the election and 
appointment to the office.* 

Dr. Boioden makes an objection to the office oi ruling elder, as 
it exists in the Presbyterian church, which I scarcely expected 
from so grave a reasoner. It is this : That if the office be such as 
we represent it, and the scriptural warrant for it such as we are in 
the habit of quoting, especially if 1 Tim. v. 17. be considered as 
pointing out this class of elders, that then. there ought to be a sala- 
ry or some kind of temporal support annexed to the office. 
" But," he adds, " to put a ruling elder in this respect, upon a 
" footing with a minister of the word, is altogether preposterous. 
" And I am convinced that your congregations would think it so, 
" were it proposed to allow the ruling elders as ample a salary as 
" they do their ministers, or any salary at all. Let the experiment 
" be made universally in your churches, and I will commit myself, 
" that we shall nev^r see the face of a ruling elder again." i. 201. 
But what has this to do with the apostolic institution of the ruling 
elder^s office ? Suppose it conceded, that a compensation ought to 
be made to this class of officers, for their services ; and suppose it 
also conceded, that no such compensation is ever, in fact, made ; 
will it follow that such officers cannot be of divine appointment ? 
Dr. B. would think it strange reasoning in any man to infer, that, 
because the labourer is worthy of his hire, his clerical commis- 
sion depends on the payment of his salary ; and that if the one 
should be withdrawn, the other would cease with it. Did the 
apostle Faul cease to be a minister of Jesus Christ because he 
laboured, working with his own hands, that he might not he 
chargeable to any ; while, at the same time, he declared, that 
they who serve at the altar, should live by the altar ? Nothing 

* When I began these sheets, it vi^asmy intention to take notice of all 
the material points in the letters of Dr. Kemp, as well as in the writings 
of my other opponents ; and accordingly I made a kind of engagement 
to do so, in a former letter. But I had not gone far on this plan, before it 
became apparent that fulfilling my engagement would be equally useless 
and irksome. The fact is, that the "rector of Great Choptank," has 
scarcely stated a single objection or argument, but what has been 
exhibited with more plausibihty and strength by Dr. Bowden. In refuting 
the latter^ therefore, the former is, of course, refuted. On this account 
I beg to be excused in future, for passing over the attack of Dr. Kemp 
in silence. 



310 LETTER IV. 

can be more absurd than to suppose it. Yet this, even conceding 
the fact for which Dr. B. contends, is the amount of his whole 
argument. 

But the fact cannot be conceded. If Dr. Bo wden had been as 
well acquainted with the Presbyterian church, as a discreet man 
would have taken care to be, before he suffered himself to speak so 
confidently on the subject, he would have known, that a compen- 
sation for their services has often been made to ruling elders ; 
and that the nature and amount of this compensation, depend on 
the circumstances of the elde7's themselves, and of the church 
which they serve. 

But, leaving this collateral inquiry, it is time that we should 
return to the main question 5 which shall be resumed in the next 
letter. 



( 311 ) 



LETTER V. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 



CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

In my former volume, while I insisted that the cause in question 
should be tried at the bar of scripture alone, and utterly protested 
against the jurisdiction of the fathers, I still consented to examine 
their testimony, and devoted two long letters to that examination. 
In those letters, if more impartial judges, as well as myself, are not 
deceived, there is abundant proof, that the fathers of the first 
TWO CENTURIES, do not contain a sentence that can be justly con- 
strued in favour of prelacy 5 but that, on the contrary, their 
testimony is decisively favourable to Presbyterian parity. Dr. 
Bowden, indeed, is of a different opinion, and speaks with great 
confidence and asperity in a different strain. But after the speci- 
men which has been given of the manner in which that gentleman 
can treat demonstrative proof, and even plain declarations of 
scripture, we need not wonder that, in his eyes, every argument is 
" frivolous,'' and even " contemptible cavilling," which opposes his 
episcopal creed. 

I have neither the leisure nor the patience again to go over the 
whole ground of the testimony of the fathers on this subject. 
My only design in the present letter, is, with great brevity, to 
examine a few of the strictures of Dr. Boioden ; to confirm some 
of my statements which have been most confidently and boldly 
called in question ; and to supply some of the defects of my for- 
mer letters on this part of the controversy. 



312 LETTER V. 

Suffer me, my brethren, again to remind you of the principle 
on which we proceed, in this part of our inquiry. If it could be 
demonstrated from the writings of the fathers, that, in one hun- 
dred, or even in fifty years, after the death of the last apostle, the 
system of diocesan episcopacy had been, generally adopted in the 
church, it would be nothing to the purpose. As long as no traces 
ofthis fact could be found in the Bible, but much of a directly 
opposite nature, we should stand on a secure and immovable 
foundation. To all reasonings, then, derived from the fathers, I 
answer, with the venerable Augustine^ who, when pressed with the 
authority of Cyprian, replied, " His writings I hold not to be 
" canonical, but examine them by the canonical writings : And in 
" them, what agreeth with the authority of divine scripture, I 
" accept, with his praise; what agreeth not, I reject with his 
" leave.''* 

But our refusal to be tried by the fathers, is founded on principle, 
and not upon any fear of the result of such a trial. We know what 
their writings contain 5 and are sure that our episcopal brethren 
would lose instead of gaining, by an impartial examination of their 
testimony. We are perfectly ready, then, to meet Dr. Bowden, or 
any other man, and to hear what he has to say on this department 
of evidence. 

In entering on this branch of the controversy in ray former 
letters, I made the following remarks : " Before we proceed to 
examine the testimony oii\\Q fathers, let us be careful to recollect 
precisely, what our episcopal brethren contend for, and what they 
are bound to prove by these witnesses, in order to make good their 
claims. When they show us passages in which these early writers 
merely speak of bishops, they seem to imagine that their point is 
gained : but such passages are, in fact, nothing to their purpose. 
We do not deny that there were bishops in the primitive church: 
on the contrary, we contend that the word bishop was a title given, 
in apostolic times and long afterwards, to every pastor of a par- 
ticular congregation. Again, when they quote passages which 
barely enumerate bishops, presbyters, and deacons, as distinct 
officers in the church, they can derive no assistance even from these; 
because there were, doubtless^ presbyters, at that time, as well as 

• Contra Crescon, H. Cap. 32. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 313 

now, who, though \n full orders were not invested with a pastoral 
charge ; and who must, therefore, be distinguished from such as 
were literally overseers or bishops of particular flocks. Besides, 
we know that there were ruling elders in the primitive church ; a 
class of presbyters confessed to be inferior to bishops in their 
ecclesiastical character. In enumerating church officers, then, 
there was frequently a necessity for making the distinction above 
slated, without in the least favouring the pretended superiority of 
order among those who laboured in the word and doctrine. No ; 
the advocates for diocesan episcopacy, if they would derive any 
support to their cause from the writings of the fathers, must do 
what they have never yet done. They must produce, from those 
venerable remains of antiquity, passages which prove, either by 
direct assertion, or fair inference, that the bishops of the primitive 
church were a distinct order of clergy from i\\oiQ presbyters who 
were authorized to preach and administer sacraments, and superior 
to them 5 that these bishops, wh^n they were advanced to this 
superior office, had a new and distinct ordination ; that each 
bishop had under him a number of congregations, with their 
pastors, whom he governed ; that these bishops were exclusively 
invested with the right of ordaining, and administering the rite 
of confirmation ; and that this kind of episcopacy was considered, 
by the whole primitive church, as an institution of Jesus Christ. 
When any ojie of these facts is fairly proved, from early antiquity, 
the friends of Presbyterian church government will feel as if they 
had something like solid argument to contend with ; but not till 
then. Now, after having given much close and serious attention 
to this subject, I can venture to assure you, that in all the authen- 
tic writings which have come down to us, of those fathers who 
lived within the first tioo hundred years after Christ, there is not 
a single sentence which can be considered, by an impartial 
reader, as affording the least support to any one of these 
positions." 

Of these remarks I cannot find that Dr. Bowden has taken the 
least notice. He goes on, falling into the very errors, against 
which he was thus explicitly warned 5 and confidently urging the 
very arguments which are here shown to be worthless. For 
instance, when he finds one of the early fathers speaking of a par- 
ticular person as bishop of a certain church, he immediately takes 
2 R 



314 LETTER V. 

for granted that a prelatical bishop was intended, and declaimg 
accordingly with all the parade of complete triumph. But this 
is a gross and most unwarrantable begging of the question. The 
word bishop unquestionably decides nothing in ^his favour; for 
Dr. B. and all our opponents, acknowledge, what we know to 
have been the fact, that this title was applied, in the days of the 
apostles, and is expressly used by the inspired writers, to designate 
the pastors of single congregations. Nay, they acknowledge, that 
for near an hundred years after the apostolic age, 'the titles of 
bisJiop and presbyter were often interchangeably applied to the 
same persons. When we attempt to derive an argument from 
the application of the title bishop to the pastors of single churches, 
which is undoubtedly to be found in scripture, they do not attempt 
to deny the fact ; but insist that the argument from names is of no 
value. But why is it of more value in one case than another ? If 
a name decides nothing when found in the Bible, it decides nothing 
when found in the /a^/iers. When, therefore, so much is made 
of the mere insulated title of bishop^ when found in the early 
writers, it is mere imposition on vulgar credulity. No inference 
can be legitimately drawn from it, in the least degree favourable 
to the episcopal cause. 

Again; when Dr. B. finds bishops, presbyters, and deacons^ 
mentioned separately, and distinguished from each other, in some 
of the early fathers, he never fails immediately to rush to the con- 
clusion, that different orders or ranks of clergy were intended by 
this distinct enumeration. But this conclusion is no less illogical 
and groundless than the former. Dr. B. knows, or ought to know, 
that, on Presbyterian principles, though every bishop is a presbyter j 
yet every presbyter is not a bishop ; since no man can, with pro- 
priety, according to our system, receive the latter title unless he have 
the pastoral charge of a congregation. We have satisfactory proof 
that there were, in the primitive church, clergymen in full orders, 
that is, empowered to preach and administer sacraments, who yet 
had no pastoral charge ; but acted the part of assistants or curates 
to the pastor, rector, or bishop. Now in what manner could such 
persons be distinguished from those who were invested with a 
pastoral charge, but by calling the one class bishops, and the other 
presbyters'? In the Presbyterian Church, we distinguish them in 
this manner ; and in the Church of England, they distinguish them 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 315 

by calling the former rectors and the latter cwm^es. And with just 
as much reason might some person, five hundred years hence, 
assert that /^as^ors and assistant presbyters, or rectors and curates 
were different orders of clergy in the eigiiteenth century ; as Dr. 
JBowden can now insist that bisJiops and presbyters were different 
orders in the primitive church. The argument is totally delusive; 
nor could it have been so often and so gravely repeated, had there 
not been, on the part of those who have urged it, a miserable defici- 
ency of sounder proof. 

But further; I have proved, in the foregoing letter, that there 
were ruling, as well as teaching presbyters, or elders, in the apos- 
tolic church, and for several centuries after the apostolic age. It 
was, doubtless, necessary, sometimes at least, to speak of this class 
of officers, as distinguished from those who, in the character of pas- 
tors, preached and administered sacraments. And v/hat method of 
making this distinction was more convenient than that which we 
now employ, when we divide our church officers into three general 
classes, \iz. bishops, elders, an6 deacons? In whatever point of 
light, then, we view this three-fold distinction, which is sometimes 
met with in the early writers, it cannot, in the smallest degree, serve 
the cause of prelacy. 

Dr. Bowden makes a number of complaints respecting my man- 
ner of stating the testimony of \he fathers. I shall consider, and 
endeavour to answer these complaints, before I proceed to exhibit 
such further testimony from those early writers, as appears to me 
favourable to the doctrine of Presbyterian parity. 

He complains, in the first place, that I have omitted to state 
some material testimony from writers of the second century. He 
evidently intimates, that this omission was designed ; and that it is 
a very important one ; and undertakes to supply it by bringing 
forward a few detached scraps from three early writers. These 
writers are Dionysius, Polycrates, and Hegesippus. To render 
the charge of omission more serious, the doctor inserts it in a long 
and solemn list of accusations, to which he endeavours to give as 
much point as possible, at the close of his work. This charge 
surprises me, on a variety of accounts. Had I professed to give 
ALL the testimony, which the first two centuries furnish, Dr. B. 
might justly have complained of any omission. But when no such 
profession was made ; when the cow^rarj/ was distinctly announced; 



316 LETTER V. 

when I formally, and more than once stated, that not the wJioIe, but 
the great body of the strongest and most important testimony was 
intended to be brought forward ; and when, from the very nature 
and size of my work, nolhing more than a selection, and even that 
a very limited onr, was possible ; it is more than wonderful that 
an imputation so serious should be advanced, even if I had omitted 
to produce passages of real importance. But this is far from being 
the case. The passages concerning which so formal and heavy a 
complaint is made, will be found, on examination, to be of no solid 
value to the advocates of episcopacy. What do these writers say ? 
Why, Dioni/sius, who lived about the year 170, and whose writings 
are all lost, excepting a few sentences, preserved by Eusebius, is 
represented by that historian as speaking of several persons as 
bishops of particular churches. Poli/crafes, also, who lived about the 
year 180, and of whose writings we have nothing except a fragment 
or two, preserved by a writer who lived long after him, simply 
says, that Timothy was ordained bishop of Ephesus, by the great 
Paul; speaks of Folycarp as bishop of Smyrna ; and of himself 
and six others, as having been bishops o( Ephesus, in succession, 
after Timothy. And Hegesippus, contemporary with Polycrates, 
of whom nothing remains, but a iQ\v detached sentences, recorded 
by Eusebius^ only says that one Primus was bishop^of Corinth / that 
Anicetus, Soter^ and Eleutherius were successively bishops of 
Rome; and that James was constituted bishop of Jerusalem, 
because he was the Lord's near kinsman. But what is the amount 
of this testimony ? It is really too frivolous to be treated with re- 
spect. What Presbyterian ever doubted that there were bishops, 
in the primitive church ; not only in Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, 
and Rome, but also in every other city or town on the globe, where 
a congregation of Christians was organized ? And when it has not 
only been demonstrated, but also acknowledged by our opponents, 
that the word bishop was applied, in the days of the apostles, and 
for a considerable time afterwards, to those who were not prelates, 
it is really something worse than trifling, still to insist upon an 
argument founded upon an equivocal title, and only calculated to 
insult the discerning, or to deceive the unwary. 

But why did Dr. Bowden mention the testimony of three fathers 

only, as having been omitted r Why did he not enumerate Bachyl- 

s of Corinth, Serapion, and others, in the second century, who 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 317 

are represented as having left writings, in which, though now lost, 
the word bishop was found ? The truth is, I considered all this 
testimony as vague and irrelevant ; and am still confident, that in 
the selection of testimony from the fathers of the first two centuries, 
which I professed to make, I did full justice to the episcopal side 
of the question. There was no passage omitted which can be con- 
sidered as speaking more forcibly in their favour, than several 
which were exhibited ; nor any which wear, in my*opinion, so 
plausible an aspect, as some which I candidly brought forward. 
Nor can I believe that Dr, Bowden would have complained so 
loudly of the omission of testimony, had he not felt that every scrap 
which bears the most distant appearance of plausibility, is neces- 
sary to assist his cause. 

With respect to another charge of Dr. Bowden, that I have 
omitted to produce certain testimony from some of the fathers of 
the third and fourth centuries, it is scarcely worthy of an answer. 
In entering on this part of the controversy in my former letters, I 
made the following explicit declaration : 

" In examining the writings of the fathers, I shall admit only the 
" testimony of those who wrote within the pikst two centuries. 
" Immediately after this period so many corruptions began to creep 
" into the church ; so many of the most respectable Christian wri- 
" ters are known to have been heterodox in their opinions; so much 
'* evidence appears, that even before the commencement of the 
" third century, the papacy began to exhibit its pretensions ; and 
" such multiplied proofs of wide spreading degeneracy crowd into 
" view, that the testimony of every subsequent writer is to be re- 
" ceived with suspicion. Besides, if diocesan episcopacy existed, 
" and were of the fundamental importance that our episcopal breth- 
" ren make it to be, v/e may surely expect to find some reference 
" to it in the records of two hundred years ; and especially when 
" we consider that those were years of the greatest simplicity and 
" purity ever known to the church." After such a declaration, 
who would have expected to find it imputed to me, as an unfair 
proceeding, that I had not exhibited the whole testimony of the 
fathers of the third and fourth centuries; especially after conceding, 
in the most unequivocal manner, that clerical imparity had begun 
to appear in the third, and was established in \.he fourth century ? 



318 LETTER V. 

But I forbear. To take up your time in replying to cavils of this 
nature, even if one had patience enough for the purpose, would be 
equally irksome and useless. 

In my former letters, I omitted to examine the testimony of the 
Apostolical Canons, and the Apostolical Constitutions ; and assign- 
ed as a reason for the omission that I considered them as spurious 
and unworthy of credit. With this omission, and the reason for it, 
Dr. Bowden is much dissatisfied. He does not, indeed, attempt 
to establish the authenticity of the Apostolical Constitutions ; but 
for that of the Canons he contends with ardent zeal. He charges 
me with having " vilified" themj and thinks, if I had ever read 
Beveridge's defence of them, I should have been more " cautious" 
and " modest." I beg leave to inform my " learned" antagonist, 
that I am not an entire stranger to Beveridge's work, and that 
after weighing his arguments as impartially as I can, I am still so 
" incautious" and " hnmodest" as to believe that these Canons 
are not what they profess to be. Beveridge himself does not con- 
tend that they v/ere made by the apostles; and Dr. Bowden 
acknowledges the same thing. They are not, therefore. Apostoli- 
cal Canons. The learned Daille is of the opinion that they were 
not compiled till ihe Jifth century ; Blojidel dates their compilation 
towards the close of the third century ; and even Beveridge him- 
self, their most partial defender, supposes them to be the decrees 
of synods in the second and third centuries, collected at diflferent 
times, and by diflferent hands. Now, so far as they belong to the 
ihii'd century, the line which I have drawn excludes them from ray 
notice. When Dr. Bowden can decide which of them were formed 
in the secowtZ century, and which of them are of a later date, I shall 
consider myself as bound by my plan to examine the former class, 
and not before. 

But, if I do not mistake, some imputations may be brought 
against both the " caution" and the " modesty" of Dr. Bowden 
himself, in this business. It would be easy to produce a number 
of episcopal writers, of the highest reputation for talents and learn- 
ing, who have, without ceremony, pronounced the Apostolical 
Canons^ as well as the Apostolical Constitutions , to be destitute of 
authenticity. Dr. B. certainly could not have been acquainted with 
these writers, of his own church j as it is not supposable that he 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 319 

would set up Zizs judgment in opposition to theirs. Among others 
Bishop Taylor, who was at least as competent a judge as Dr. 
B. speaks of the writings in question in the following language i 

" Even of the fifty {canons) which are most respected, it is evi* 
" dent that there are some things so mixed with them, and no mark 
" of difference left, that the credit oiall'is much imp aired; insomuch 
" that Isidore, of Seville, says, ' they were apocryphal, made by 
" heretics, and published under the title apostolical ; but neither 
" the fathers nor the church of i?ome did give assent to them.' "* 

Dr. Boioden not only charges me with omitting to state the testi- 
mony of some fathers, but also with misrepresenting that of others. 
Most of the instances which he produces in support of this charge, 
do not appear to me entitled to any reply. Of a iew, however, it 
may be proper to take a cursory notice. 

He asserts that I have misrepresented the testimony oi Ignatius ; 
but wherein does this misrepresentation consist ? Dr. Bowden will 
not dare to deny that my quotations from that father are larger and 
more numerous than his ojcn / nor will he dare to deny, that I have 
selected, and fairly exhibited, those very quotations which high 
churchmen have generally adduced as, in their view, most decisive 
in favour of prelacy. In what respect, then, have I been guilty of 
misrepresentation ? He will probably reply that my comments on 
the testimony of Ignatius are unfair. The best answer to this 
charge will be a dispassionate review of those comments 5 and I 
will venture to say, that no one who takes this trouble, will find 
any thing in them but what is natural, probable, and abundantly 
warranted by the strain of the testimony itself. 

Ignatius, indeed, speaks much of bishops. But I have shown 
that this title furnishes no ground of argument in favour of prelacy. 
He speaks much, too, of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, as dis- 
tinguished from each other : but I have also clearly shown that 
this distinction is perfectly consistent with our doctrine of minis- 
terial parity ; and that to represent it in a different light, is a mere 
begging of the question in dispute. But I will go further, and 
again venture, with greater confidence than ever, to repeat my for- 
mer assertion, that the bishop so often mentioned by Ignatius is 
evidently di parochial and not a diocesan bishop. If the bishop to 
whom this father refers, was the only person, in each church, em- 

* Liberty of prophesying. Sect. 5, Art. 9, 



320 LETTER V. 

powered to baptize, and administer the Lord^s supper ; if no mar- 
riage could take place without his knowledge and consent ; if it 
was considered as his duty to be personally acquainted with all 
his flock, to take notice with his own eye of those who were pre- 
sent and absent at the time of public worship, to attend to the 
widows and the poor of his congregation, to seek out all bi/ name, 
and not to overlook even the me7i and maid-servants of the flock 
committed to his charge ; then, surely, no man in his senses can 
suppose that this officer could have been any other than a paro- 
cJiial bishop ov pastor. I know that Dr. Boivden is of the opinion, 
and endeavours to show, that the duties which I have stated, are 
not all represented by Ignatius as belonging to his bishop. I do 
not consider it as worth while to take up your time in discussing 
this point. Let any one look over the epistles o( Ignatius, or if he 
cannot have access to them, let him look over the extracts which I 
have given in my former letters, including those on which Dr. B. 
lays the greatest stress, and then let him say whether it is possible 
to reconcile the whole strain and language of that venerable father 
with any other than parochial or Presbyterian episcopacy ? For 
my part, though Dr. B. very delicately loads this suggestion with 
the terms " nonsense," " contemptible puerility," &c. I am per- 
suaded every impartial reader will say, it is both sounder sense, 
and better logic, than this gentleman, with all his " scholar-like" 
management, has drawn from the testimony of the pious martyr. 
In short, Dr. Bowden may fume and fret as long and as much as 
he pleases, but, after all that he has said, or can say, nothing intelli- 
gible can, be made of the bishop, presbyters, and deacons of that 
father, materially different from the pastor, elders, and deacons of 
every regularly organized Presbyterian church. 

Dr. Bowden supposes that Presbyterians consider the bishop so 
often mentioned by Ignatius, in no other light than as the mode- 
rator of some ecclesiastical assembly. Assuming this as our opi- 
nion, he attempts to pour ridicule upon it, by substituting the 
word moderator for bishop, and endeavouring to show that the 
supposition is utterly inconsistent with the representation given of 
the duties of this officer. When a man does not comprehend the 
subject which he attempts to ridicule, he is extremely apt to draw 
upon himself the laughter which he thought to turn against others. 
This is the unfortunate situation of Dr. Bowden. He seizes upon 
a detached fragment of Presbyterian doctiine; and, imagining that 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 321 

he sees and understands the whole system, he thinks to involve 
that system, in the absurdity which he makes to recoil upon his 
own. 

Dr. Bowden ought to know, that bishop and moderator are not 
convertible terms 5 and that they are not so considered by Presby- 
terians. We suppose, and believe it is easy to prove, that the 
word bishop) in the apostolic age, signified, simply, the pastor or 
overseer of a flock, or single congregation. Accordingly we con- 
clude that there were several organized churches both at Ephesus 
and Philippi, in the days of the apostles, because the scriptures 
expressly tell us that, at that time, there were several bishops in 
both those cities. We have shown, too, that each church, in the 
days of the apostles, was commonly furnished with a bench of 
ruling elders, andi deacons. We have also reason to believe, that, 
in large congregations, there were several elders who, as assistants, 
laboured in the word and doctrine. The pastor, that is the pres- 
byter who was particularly invested with the pastoral charge, was 
called the bishop of that church 5 and when the elders came to- 
gether, and sat as a church session, or ecclesiastical court, he, of 
course, presided as their moderator. It is easy to perceive, how- 
ever, that this bishop was equally such, both mfact, and in name, 
whether he was ever called to act as moderator or not. The mere 
circumstance of his having no bench of elders, and no church 
session in which to preside, did not destroy or affect his pastoral 
character. We maintain, that there was no other species of bishop, 
during the time of the apostles, than such as has been described, 
that is, the pastor of a single flock or church. 

But we suppose that, very early after the apostle's days, when 
the congregations, and, of course, the pastors, in large cities, 
became numerous, and frequently convened for the transaction of 
ecclesiastical business, that the custom was adopted of choosing 
one person, generally the most aged and venerable of the number, 
to act as president, chairman, or moderator, and that, after a while, 
the title of bishop was, by way of eminence conferred on him ; 
and, in process of time, gradually appropriated to him. Hence it 
is a notorious fact, which our episcopal brethren do not pretend to 
deny, that bishops, in the second and third centuries, were frequent- 
ly distinguished by the titles, president, chairman, and the 
person who filled the first seat in the presbytery. But this 
2 S 



322 LETTER V. 

no more implied, nor, at that time, was considered as implying, a 
superiority of rank or ordery on the part of the chairman, than the 
office of »iOc/e?*«;or in one of our presbyteries or synods, clothes 
the pastor who fills it with a permanent superiority of order over 
his brethren. 

In some cities, however, it is evident that a different plan was 
pursued. When the converts to the Christian faith became so 
numerous, that they were no longer able to worship in one assem- 
bly ; and especially when a number of persons from the neigh- 
bouring villages joined the city church, some of these members be" 
gan to lay plans for forming separate and smaller congregations 
nearer home. To this the bishop consented, on condition that the 
little worshipping: societies thus formed should consider themselves 
as still under his pastoral care, as amenable to the parent church, 
and as bound to obey him as their spiritual guide. When the 
pastor agreed to this arrangement, it was generally understood, 
that there should be but one communion table, and one bapistery 
in the city or parish ; and, of course, that when the members of 
these neighbouring societies wished to receive either of the sacra- 
ments, they were to attend at the parent church, and receive them 
from the hands of the pastor or bishop himself. The ordinary 
services of public worship on the Lord's day, were performed at 
little oratories, or chapels of ease, planted at different and con- 
venient places within the parish ; and on these, it was considered 
as sufficient for the assistant preachers, or curates, to attend. But 
at special seasons, at least once or iiuice in the year, every church 
member was held under obligations to attend the mother church, 
and commune with the pastor himself. This was laying the foun- 
dation for the authority of one bishop or pastor over several 
distinctly organized congregations, which, not long afterwards, was 
claimed and yielded. 

We have specimens of a similar arrangement in modern times. 
Fifteen years ago all the episcopal inhabitants of the city of New 
York, were under the pastoral care of the rector of Trinity Church, 
In the beginning, that rector had only one church under his inspec- 
tion, and was himself the only preacher in it. But when ^second 
and a third were built, and a large congregation established in 
each, it was still thought proper to retain the whole under the 
care of one pastor with several assistants ; so that when there 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 323 

were three episcopal churches, and probably from eiglit to ten 
thousand Episcopalians in the city, there was still but one rector 
over the whole, with a number of assistant clergymen, who were 
considered, and treated as officially subordinate to him. Yet these 
assistant clergymen had, in reality, the same ordination with their 
rector ; were as perfectly qualified as himself, to take a rectorate 
or pastoral charge, without any new ordination ; and were of the 
same ecclesiastical order, although, as long as they retained this 
relation to him, they were his clergy, and were under his control 
in all their professional services. The whole city was, to all 
intents and purposes, one parish, and the i^ector its ecclesiastical 
head. 

That an arrangement substantially of this kind was frequent in 
the second and third centuries, is not merely a supposition of 
mine ; but is asserted by a number of the best informed and most 
able advocates of prelacy. The learned Mede, a zealous episco- 
pal divine, in his Discourse on Churches, p. 48. says, ^^ Nay, more 
" than this, it should seem that in those first times, before dioceses 
" were divided into those lesser and subordinate churches, which 
" we now call parishes, and presbyters assigned to them, they had 
'^ only one altar to a church, taking church for the company or 
"corporation of the faithful, united under one bishop ov pastor ; 
" and that was in the city or place where the bishop had his see 
" and residence. Unless this were so, whence came it else, that a 
" schismatical bishop was sd\^,constituere ov collocare aliud al- 
" tare ? And that a bishop and an altar are made correlatives ?" 

The same fact is asserted by Bishop Stilling jleet, in his sermon 
against separation. " Though, when the churches increased," 
says he, " the occasional meetings were frequent in several 
" places ; yet still there was but one church ; and one altar, and 
" one baptistery, and one bishop, with many presbyters assisting 
" him. Which, is so plain, in antiquity, as to the churches plant- 
" ed by the apostles themselves, that none but a great stranger to 
" the history of the church can call it in question. 'Tis true, 
" after some time, in the greater cities, they had distinct places 
" allotted, and presbyters fixed among them. And such allotments 
" were called Tituli at Rome, and Laurai at Alexandria, and 
" Parishes in other places. But these were never thought, then, to 
" be new churches, or to have any independent government in 



324 LETTER V. 

" themselves, but were all in subjection to the bisjiop and his 
" college oi presbyters ; of which multitudes of examples might be 
^' brought from the most authentic testimonies of antiquity, if a 
" thing so evident needed any proof at all. And yet this distri- 
" bution (into distinct Tituli) even in cities, was looked on as so 
" uncommon in those elder times, that Epiphanius takes notice of 
" it as an extraordinary thing at Alexandria; and, therefore, it is 
" probably supposed that there was no such thing in all the cities 
" of Crete in his time." 

Accordingly Ignatius, in his epistle to the Philadelphians 
declares, " There is, to every church, one altar, and one bishop.** 
And he elsewhere represents it as a characteristic of the unity of a 
church, that there is one altar, and one bishop in each. Cyprian, 
in like manner, repeatedly speaks of setting up a new altar, or 
communion table within the parish or diocese of a pastor, without 
his leave, as irregular and schismatical. These facts perfectly 
agree with the declaration made by several of the fathers, that 
administering the ordinance of baptism was considered as the 
appropriate work of the bishop within the bounds of his church ; 
and also that the members of each church received the Lord's 
supper from no other hands than those of their bishop. Accord- 
ingly Dr. Hammond, a zealous friend of prelacy, expressly affirms, 
that in the days of Tertidlian, all Christians received the eucharist 
from no other than the bishop's hands ;* and Dr. Heylin, an 
Episcopalian of still higher tone, distinctly acknowledges the same 
fact.t To suppose that these representations are consistent with 
the episcopal arrangement, in which a number of distinct and 
independent congregations, each supplied with a pastor or rector, 
are all under the government of a prelate, in the habit of visiting 
each congregation once or twice every year, is manifestly absurd. 
They can only be reconciled with a system in which, as in the 
Presbyterian church, the pastor or bishop is made overseer of a 
single flock or church ; is ordinarily the sole dispenser of the 
word and ordinances in that church ; and must be consulted, and 
his leave directly or indirectly obtained, when others attempt to 
dispense them within his parish. 

* Dissertat,x\\. Cap.\\i. % 5. 

t History of Episcopacy ^ Part ii. p. 96, 97 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 335 

We are now prepared to determine what kind of bishop Ignatius 
was, and in what sense the other contemporary pastors were 
addressed by that father under this title. If we suppose that in 
each of the cities of JntiocTi, Smyrna, 8fc. there was only a single 
congregation of Christians, then the case is plain. Those venera- 
ble ministers were only pastors or bishops of single flocks, in per- 
fect conformity with the Presbyterian model. But let us suppose 
that there were several large worshipping assemblies of Christians 
in each 'of those cities. It is true, the epistles of Ignatius do not 
give the least hint, that this was the case ; and we only infer it, 
from probable evidence, derived from other sources, without being 
able, on either side, to establish or to disprove the fact. Let it be 
admitted, however, that there were several worshipping assemblies 
in each of these cities ; still this fact proves nothing in favour of 
prelacy. Their pastors might each have had several congregations 
under their care, and several clergymen to assist them, without 
being prelates, any more than the rector of Trinity Church thirty 
years ago was a prelate. But we may go even further. Suppose 
it abundantly proved, that in the days of Ignatius, there were 
established in each of the cities of Antioch, Smyrna, 8fc. a number 
of separate and distinctly organized congregations, and that each 
was under the care of a pastor. And suppose it further proved 
that, notwithstanding this Ignatius was, by way of eminence 
styled bishop of Antioch, and Polycarp bishop of Smyrna ; still 
the fact, even if established, would be perfectly consistent with 
Presbyterian parity. We have only to suppose these men were 
moderators of the respective presbyteries of those cities, and all 
is natural, intelligible, and probable. In this case, we may con- 
sider all the instructions concerning bishops and their^oc^s, which 
the epistles in question contain, as merely conveyed through the 
medium of the senior or presiding pastor, to his colleagues, and as 
intended equally for all. Thus it appears that the epistles of 
Ignatius do not, on any supposition, contain a sentence which can 
be legitimately construed in favour of prelacy ; and that all the 
confidence of my opponents in asserting the contrary, is ground- 
less and futile. 

Dr. Bowden is equally positive, that I have misrepresented the 
testimony of Irenceus. Here again I beg of you impartially to 
review the extracts which I gave from the writings of that father 



326 LETTER V. 

and my comments upon them, together with all that Dr. B. has 
said on the subject j and then to decide between us. It is plain, 
and Dr. B. does not deny, that Irenceus speaks of certain persons, 
by name, as presbyters, and represents them as successors of the 
apostles. It is equally plain, that he speaks of the same persons, 
in another place, as bishops, and under that title also, represents 
them as having the succession from the apostles. He does this, not 
once merely, but several times, and with as much point, and appa- 
rent care, as if his grand object had been to show that presbyters 
and bishops were then the sai)ie. The argument arising from this 
language is obviously in our favour. Dr. Bowden, indeed, thinks 
otherwise, and makes an attempt to answer it 5 but his embarrass- 
ment, and inability to accomplish his purpose, must be apparent 
to every reader. 

Dr. Bowden lays much stress on a passage in Irenceus, in which 
he speaks of these persons, whom he alternately calls bishops and 
presbyters, as succeeding the apostles in their mastership. What 
is mastership ? Simply official authority. And what has this to 
do with prelacy ?. Nothing. Suppose a Presbyterian were to say, 
" The bishops of our church are the successors of the apostles, and 
" succeed to as much of their authority or mastership, as was in- 
" tended to be perpetual in the church :" would any intelligent 
person who heard him, imagine that he was speaking a language 
either favourable to diocesan episcopacy, or hostile to his own 
principles ? Certainly not. And yet this language coincides, in 
every essential point, with that of Jrewcews. — Dr. Bowden seems 
not to understand, or perpetually to forget, that we consider our 
pastors or bishops as the true and proper successors of the apos- 
tles, so far as their office was ordinary and intended to be trans- 
mitted ; and that we consider them as invested with the highest 
authority, or (if he prefer the word,) mastership in the church. 

But that part of the testimony of Irenoius to which Dr. Bowden 
attaches the greatest importance, is, that he represents the succes- 
sion in the church of Rome as flowing through single ministers, 
whom he styles bishops 5 although we have reason to believe that 
there were many presbyters connected with the church in that city. 
Now, if there were a number of bishops, in our sense of the word, 
in Rome, how, it is asked, could Irenoius trace the line of succes- 
sion through single persons only ? In other words, why does he 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 327 

single out Linus, Anacletiis, Clemens, and Evaristus, as successive- 
ly bishops of Rome, when, according to our doctrine, there were 
pretty certainly, a number of contemporary ministers in that church, 
of the same rank with those whose names are mentfoned ? I answer, 
this statement oilrenceus is not to he relied on; and if it were, it 
is nothing to the purpose. 

T say, the statement of this father, respecting the succession in 
the church of Rome, is not to he relied upon. He says that Anac- 
letus was before Clemens, and next to Linus. Tertidlian and seve- 
sal others assure us that Clemens was next to Peter, and, of course, 
before Anacletus. Epiphanius and Optatus say that Anacletus 
and Cleius were before Clemens, While Jerome, Augustine, Da- 
masus, and others, assert that Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus, were 
all antecedent to Clemens. Here is perfect confusion. It is evi- 
dent that these writers were guided by vague and contradictory 
traditions, and knew nothing Of the matter. The probability, from 
the very face of the story, is that the bishops or pastors of whom 
they speak, did not all sit in the pastoral chair oi Rome singly, and 
in succession, but several of them together. Accordingly, Dama- 
sus, in his work De Gesiis Pontijicum, hath these words : " St. 
" Peter ordained two bishops, Limts and Cletus, who, in their own 
" persons, should perform all sacred offices to the Roman people." 
It is true these words are not to be found in the printed editions of 
that work ; but they are in all the manuscript copies, and so they 
are cited by Marianus Scotus, as the learned Vossius assures us ; 
who adds, " That the succession of bishops at Rome, in a single 
'' person, began under Evaristus, Before his time two or three 
" sat together,"* The learned Junius, also, an illustrious reform- 
er oi Holland, nearly contemporary with Luther, speaking of the 
contradictory testimony of the fathers, respecting the succession of 
the first bishops or pastors of Rome, delivers the following decisive 
opinion. " These, or some of these, were presbyters or bishops 
" of Rome, at the same time, ruling the church in common. But 
^' the following writers, fancying to themselves such bishops as had 
" then obtained in the church, fell into these snares of tradition, 
" because they supposed, according to the custom of their own 

* Owen's History of Cfrdination, Chap. i. Prop. vii. 



328 LETTER V. 

" times, that there could be but one bishop in one church at the 
" same time."* 

But, granting that there is no mistake in the testimony of 
IrencEUs ; granting that it is all authentic and worthy of confid- 
ence 5 it proves nothing inconsistent with the doctrine of Pres- 
byterian parity. What though the pious father represents a 
succession of single persons as styled bishops in the church of 
Borne ? They might have been the senior pastors of that city, or 
they might have been the successive moderators of the city pres- 
bytery. Or a few names might have been selected out of a num- 
ber of contemporary ministers, of the same ecclesiastical order, on 
account of their superior age, talents, or weight of character. In 
short, a variety of suppositions may be made concerning them, all 
equally reconcilable with Presbyterian principles, and with the 
language of Irenceus ; but none of them giving the least counte- 
nance to the prelatical doctrine of different orders of clergy. 

But the most extraordinary charge of Dr. B. is that I have misre- 
presented and perverted the testimony of Jerome. He insists that 
Jerome says nothing, which can be justly construed as intimating 
that ministerial parity existed in the apostolic church ; but much 
of a directly opposite import. With a man who can persist in 
assertions of this kind, in the face of evidence so clear and indu- 
bitable, it is vain to reason. Let me request you, brethren, again, 
to review the long and faithful extracts from the writings of this 
father, which are contained in the Jifth of my former letters, and 
then decide whether it is possible for sophistry itself to set aside 
testimony so full and positive. What does Jerome say ? Instead 
of speaking " obscurely," or " doubtfully," as Dr. B. alleges, his 
declarations on this point are absolutely among the most express 
and unequivocal passages to be found on any subject, in all an- 
tiquity ! He says, in so many words, that in the beginning, " Not 
" only in his opinion, but also in that of scripture, bishop and 
" presbyter were the same, the one being the name of age, the 
" other of office.'^ — And again, among the andients, presbyters 
" and bishops were the same,'^ — And again, " A presbyter is the 
" same as a bishop 5 and before there were, by the devil's influ- 

* Jvmi Controv. Lib li. Cap. 5. Not. 18. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 329 

" ence, parties in religion, the churches were governed by the 
" common council of presbyters." To prove this, he formally 
quotes passages from the Acts of the Apostles, from the epistle to 
the PhiUppianSj from the epistles to Timothj and Titus, from the 
first epistle of Pefer, and from the second and third epistles of 
John : — The very passages which are generally quoted by Pres- 
byterians in favour of their doctrine. Jerome further declares that 
afterwards the practice was introduced of placing one of the- 
presbyters above the rest, as a remedy against schism. He de- 
clares, expressly, that this practice was brought in (paulatim) hy 
little and little,'^ He asserts, with equal explicitness, that " bish- 
ops are above presbyters, more by the custom of the church, than 
by the appointment of Christ.^' And finally, he asserts that this 
departure from the primitive model, owed its origin to the decay- 
of religion, and especially to the ambition of ministers. It com- 
menced " When every one began to think that those whom he 
baptized were rather his than Christ's." I appeal to your can- 
dour, my brethren, whether any thing can be plainer or more 
decisive than this language ? I appeal to your candour, whether 
the man who is capable of saying that these are " obscure" and 
" doubtful" passages, can be safely trusted either as a discerning or 
an impartial judge. 

Dr. ^oM;c?e?«, indeed, alleges, that these " obscure" passages from 
Jerome are more than counterbalanced by others, in which he 
avowedly maintains the apostohcal origin of prelacy. But where 
are such passages to be found in that father ? Dr. B. has produced 
none of them 5 and until he does produce them, I must be excused 
for doubting their existence. He has brought forward, it is true, 
seven quotations, each of which he tells us is clear and pointed. 
But no person, it is presumed, excepting Dr. B. himself, can see 
the " clearness," or the " point" of any one of the number. 
Jerome, it seems, asserts, that " without the bishop's command, 
*' neither presbyter nor deacon has a right to baptize." He 
observes, " That the scriptures give the name of Princes to those 
" who should be bishops of the church." He styles Folycarp, 
prince of Asia ;* and asserts that he was " made bishop of 

* For the passage in which Jerome represents Poly carp 2i^ prince of all 
Asittt and bishop of Smyrna, Dr. Bowdenvefers to the wovk DeScripior. 
2 T 



330 LETTER V. 

Smyrna by St. Jolin himself.'' Speaking of certain differences 
between the catholic churches, and those of the Montanists, he 
says, "With us, the bishops hold the place of the apostles ; with 
*' them the bishop holds the third place." Again, he says, it is 
" the custom of the church, for bishops to go and invoke the Holy 
" Spirit by imposition of hands, on such as were baptized by pres- 
" byters and deacons, in villages and places remote from the mother 
" church. Do you ask, where this is written ? In the Acts of the 
"Apostles." In another place he says, "The apostles were thy 
"fathers because they begat thee; but now that they have left 
" the world, thou hast in their stead, their sons, the bishops."* 
And linally, in his Epistle to Evagrius, be remarks, " That we 
" may know that the apostolic traditions were taken from the Old 
" Testament, that which Aaron and his sons, and the Levites, 
" were in the temple, let the bishops, presbyters, and deacons, 
" claim to themselves in the church." These are all the passages 
which Dr. Bowden cites with so much exultation, and which he 
considers as pointedly asserting the apostolic institution of prelacy. 
But I will venture to pronounce, that there is not one of these pas- 
sages, which can be considered by any impartial reader, as furnish- 
ing the least solid ground for such a conclusion ; and only one of 
the vi'hole number which bears even the semblance of an argument 
to this effect. 

When Jerome says that bishops come in the place of apostles, 
and hold the first place among the oflicers of the church; when he 
remarks, that the apostles having left the world, we have the bishops 
in their place ; and when he asserts that Polycarp was bishop of 
Smyrna; he speaks a language in which every Presbyterian is 
ready to join him. Is it possible that Dr. Bowden is so utterly 
unacquainted with our principles, as not to know, that we consider 
our bishops or pastors, as the true and proper successors of the 
Apostles ; and as holding the highest official station in the Church ? 

Eccles. Has the doctor yet to learn that this work is acknowle dged by 
the ablest episcopal writers to be interpolated and suspicious ; and par- 
ticularly, that they have acknowledged, as among* the interpolations, 
several passages in which persons are mentioned as bishops of particular 
churches in the apostolic age. 

• This quotation also Dr. Bowden takes from the adulterated work, Dc 
Script, Eccles. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 331 

Did he ever meet with a Presbyterian who doubted that Poly carp 
had a pastoral charge, or, in other words, was a hisJiop in Smyrna ? 
Again, when Jerome says, " Without the hishop^s command, 
" neither presbyter nor deacon has a right to baptize," he evidently 
meant to assert that this was the case in \\\q fourth century, when 
he lived. But did any Presbyterian ever deny that in the days of 
Jerome^ prelacy was established ? The criticism which Dr. B. 
makes on the word rigid (jus) which occurs in this passage, I 
pass over as unworthy of his good sense, and as undeserving of 
reply. Further, when Jerome declares, that the Scriptures give the 
name o( princes to bishops, and when he asserts that Polycarp 
was prince of all Asia, he says what our Episcopal brethren 
themselves acknowledge to be falsehoods. They know that no 
such official title is, any where in Scripture, given to bishops ; and 
they acknowledge also that Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna only, 
and that metropolitans and patriarchs did not arise until a consi- 
derable time after his day. When Jerome says, " It is the custom 
" of the church for bishops to lay their hands on such as have been 
"baptized hy presbyters and deacons^ and to invoke the Holy 
" Spirit," he asserts nothing more than that it was the custom of 
the church in his day. Who doubts this ? Do we not all know 
that, before the time of Jerome, the rite which is called confirm' 
ation had crept into the church, and began to claim apostolic in- 
stitution ? And even when Jerome refers to the Acts of the Apostles 
as his authority for diis custom, it is nothing to the purpose as to 
the present controversy ; for he does not say, that the persons who 
laid hands on baptized persons in the apostles' days were the same 
kind of bishops with those who arrogated to themselves that 
power in his days. Nay, he says, in another place, directly the 
contrary. And finally,when Jerome remarks, " what Aaron and 
his sons, and the Levites were in the temple, let the bishops^ 
" presbyters, and deacons claim to themselves in the Church;'* 
and when he speaks of this parallel as an apostolical tradition, 
we can only infer from his language the well-known fact, that 
in his day, high churchmen were fond of comparing the 
christian ministry with the Jewish priesthood 5 of endeavouring 
to show that the former succeeded to the grades, titles, and 
privileges of the latter ; and of pleading apostolical tradition for 
this doctrine. It is known, independent of any testimony from 



332 LETTER V. 

Jerome, that this was the fashionable doctrine and language of his 
time 5 and it was natural for him to adopt that language, when he 
was not particularly called to speak of the system actually estab- 
lished by the apostles. But when Jerome undertakes professedly 
and formally to tell us how this matter actually stood in the aposto- 
lic age, he speaks in the following explicit and unequivocal language. 
Comment, in Tit. 1. 9. " Apresbi/ter is iJie same as a bishop ; and 
" before there were, by the instigation of the devil, parties in reli- 
" gion, and it was said among the peo\)]e, I a?n of Paul, I of 
" Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the 
"common council of presbyters, ^wi afterioards vfhen every one 
" thought that those whom he baptized were rather his than Christ^s, 
" it was determined through the whole world, that one of the pres- 
" byters should be set above the rest, to whom all care of the church 
" should belong, that the seeds of schism might be taken away. If 
"any suppose that it is merely mi/ opinion, and not that of the 
" Scriptures, that bishop and presbyter are the same, and that one 
" is the name of age, the other of ojice, let him read the words of 
" the apostle to the Philippians, saying, Paul and Timothy, the 
^^ servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that 
are in PhiUppi, with the bishops and deacons, Philippi is a city 
" of Macedonia, and certainly, in one city, there could not be more 
" than one bishop, as they are now styled. But at that time they 
" called the same men bishops whom they caWed presbyters ', there- 
" fore, he speaks indifferently of bishops as of presbyters. This 
" may seem, even yet, doubtful to some, till it be proved by another 
** testimony. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that when 
" the Apostle came to Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the 
" presbyters of that church, to whom, among other things, he said, 
" Take heed to yourselves, and to all iheJlocJc over whom the Holy 
" Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God which 
" he hath purchased with his own blood. Here observe dili- 
" gently, that calling together the presbyters of one city, Ephesus, 
" he afterwards styles the same persons bishops. 

" These things I have written to show, that among the ancients, 
" presbyters and bishops were the same. But, by little and little, 
" that all the seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the whole 
" care was devolved on one. As, therefore, the presbyters know, 
" that by the custom of the church they are subject to him who is 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 333 

«' their president^ so let bishops know, that they are above presbyters 
«^ more by iJie custom of the church, than by any real appointment 
''of Christ:' 

In his epistle to Evagrius, he speaks in the same pointed lan- 
guage, asserting, and proving by the same quotations from Scrip- 
ture, that in the beginning, and during the apostle's days, a bishop 
and a presbyter were the same thing. After having done this, he 
proceeds thus: " As to the fact, that afterwards, one was elected 
" to preside over the rest, this was done as a remedy against schism ; 
*' lest every one drawing his proselytes to himself, should rend the 
" Church of Christ. For at Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist, 
" to the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the Presbyters always 
"chose one of their number, placed him in a superior station, and 
" gave him the title of bishop. In the same manner as if any army 
" should make an emperor, or the deacons should choose from 
" among themselves, one whom they knew to be particularly active 
" and should call him archdeacon." 

jyt. Bowden, dii\<\ his friends, do not hesitate to acknowledge, that 
Jerome represents some alteration of the original constitution of the 
church as having early taken place ; but they insist that, according 
to him, this alteration took place during the time, and under the 
authority of the apostles. Is Dr. B. then prepared to adopt the 
opinion, that the inspired apostles at first adopted a form of govern- 
ment, which in a little while, they found ill judged, and insufficient 
to answer the purpose ; and that they then altered it for a better ? 
Yet if there is any meaning in part of his reasoning, this is the 
amount of it ! But besides the blasphemy of the suggestion, Jerome 
could not have intended to say that this alteration took place during 
the limes of the apostles, because he quotes the apostolical epistles to 
prove that it had not taken place at their date ; and particularly 
in his epistle to Evagrius, he quotes the second and third epistles 
of John to show that Presbyterian parity existed when they were 
written, which was about thirty years after the schism at Corinth, 
which Dr. Boicden asserts is the period assigned by Jerome for the 
rise of prelacy. Jerome further tells us, that the practice of setting 
one of the presbyters above the rest, was brought in by degrees ; 
which could never have been the case had it been founded on a 
distinct and positive order of the apostles. And, as if this were not 
sufficiently explicit, he adds, to take away all possibility of mistake, 



334 LETTER V. 

" Let the presbyters know that they are subject to him who is set 
" over them hy the custom of the church ; and let the bishops know, 
'* that they are greater than presbyters, rather hy the custom of the 
** churchj than by any real appointment of Christ.^^ 

If I were further to take up your time, brethren, in exposing the 
various attempts of Dr. Bowden to set aside this plain and unequivo- 
cal testimony of Jero/we, I should trespass on your patience, and 
insult your understandings. I have only to say, that some of the 
most learned and able advocates of prelacy, as well as others, have 
understood Jerome as we undertand him, and have confessed that 
he decisively maintains the apostolic origin of Presbyterian parity. 
To establish this fact, the most pointed quotations might be ad- 
duced, almost without number. The few following will be sufficient. 

The celebrated episcopal divine. Dr. Saravia, explicitly grants 
that Jerome was against the divine right of episcopacy. " Jerome's 
" opinion," says he, " was private, and coincided with that of 
" Aerius/^^ 

The learned prelatist, Alphonso de Castro understood Jerome in 
the same manner. He sharply reproves a certain writer who had 
endeavoured to set aside the testimony commonly derived from 
that father in favour of presbytery, and insists that the testimony, 
as usually adduced, is correct. "But Thomas Waldensis,^^ says he, 
" truly is deceived ; for Jerome does endeavour to prove that, 
" according to divine institution, there was no difference between 
" presbyter and bishop.''' He afterwards adds, " Neither ought 
" any one to wonder that Jerome, though otherwise a most learned 
" and excellent man was mistaken.''! 

Bishop Jewel understood Jerome as we do, and expressly quotes 
the passage which is commonly quoted by Presbyterians, to show 
that this father asserts the original equality and identity of bishops 
and presbyters.'^ 

Bishop Morton interprets Jerome in the same manner. He ex- 
pressly acknowledges that Jerome represents the difference between 
bishop and presbyter as brought into the church not by divine, 
but human authority. He further asserts, that there was no sub- 

* De Gradihus Minist. Evangel. Cap. 23. 

f Contra Heres. p, 103, 104. 

i^ Defence of his ^pobgyfar the Church of England, p. 248. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 335 

stantial difference, on the subject of episcopacy, between Jerome 
and Aerius. And further, that not only all the protestants^ but 
also all the primitive doctors were of the same mind with Jerome, * 

The learned Episcopalian, professor Whitaker, concurred in this 
interpretation. "If Aerius/' says he, " was a heretic in this point, 
" he had Jerome to be his neighbour in that heresy 5 and not only 
" him, but other fathers, both Greek and Latin, as is confessed by 
" Medina. Aerius thought that presbyter did not differ from bi- 
" shop by any divine law and authority ; and the same thing was 
*^ contended for by Jerome, and he defended it by those very scrip- 
" ture testimonies that Aerius did."t 

Few men have been more distinguished for their learned and 
zealous labours in favour of episcopacy than Dr. William Nichols. 
Yet this eminent Episcopalian, speaking of Jerome, thus expresses 
himself. " At last came St. Jerome, though not till above three 
" centuries after the apostles' times, who valuing himself upon his 
" learning, which, indeed, was very great ; and being provoked by 
" the insolence of some deacons, who set themselves above presby- 
" ters ; to the end he might maintain the dignity of his order 
" against such arrogant persons, he advanced a notion never heard 
" of before, viz. that presbyters were not a different order from bi- 
" shops ; and that a bishop was only a more eminent presbyter, 
" chosen out of the rest, and set over them, for preventing of 
" schism."! 

Luther, whom some of our episcopal brethren ignorantly claim 
as their own, in the articles of Smallcald^ which he framed, ex- 
pressly declares, that " Jerome teaches that the distinction of de- 
" grees between a bishop and a presbyter, or pastor, was appointed 
" only by human authority.''^ This declaration was also formally 
subscribed by Melancthon. In the Confession of Wirtemberg, 
Jerome is interpreted in the same manner 5 and in the second 
Helvetic Confession, he is particularly quoted in support of the 
doctrine that in the primitive church fizsAop and presft^/^er were 
the same. And, in a subsequent letter, you will find a number of 

• Cathol. Apolog, Lib. i. p. 118—120. 

f Controv. iv. Quest, i. Cap. iii. Sect. 30. 

\ Defence of the Dod. andZfiscip. of the Church of England -p. 241. 



336 LETTER V. 

other illustrious divines, of different denominations, all concurring 
in the interpretation which we give of the learned father. 

I shall close my remarks on the testimony of Jerome, with the 
judgment of bishop Croft, expressed in the following words — 
<' And now I desire my reader, if he understands Latin, to view 
" the epistle of St. Jerome to Evagrius, and doubtless he will 
" wonder to see men have the confidence to quote any thing out of 
" it for the distinction between episcopacy and presbytery ; for 
" the whole epistle is to show the identity of them.^^^ 

I will not attempt to follow Dr. Bowden through all his tedious 
details of testimony from the fathers of the third, fourth, and fol- 
lowing centuries, and his still more tedious comments on that 
testimony. What if Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Hilary, Epi- 
phanius, Augustine, and a dozen more, who lived within the same 
period, could be brought to attest in the most unequivocal terms 
that prelacy existed in their time ? Does any Presbyterian deny 
that clerical imparity had begun to appear in the third, and was 
established in the fourth century ? But Dr. Boicden alleges that 
several of these writers expressly assert the apostolic institution 
of prelacy. JNow if it were even true that they ao make this asser- 
tion, it would weigh nothing with me, nor with any other reasona- 
ble man. In this opinion every one must concur who seriously 
weighs the following facts. 

Within fifty years after the apostolic age, ihtwinem the Lord's 
supper was constantly mixed with water. This mixture, consid- 
ered, at first, as a measure of human prudence, soon began to be 
urged, not only as a matter of importance, but as a divine institu- 
tion, Irenceus declares it to have been both taught and practised 
by our Saviour himself. Lib. iv. cap. 57- — Cyjwian also asserts 
that the same thing was enjoined by tradition from the Lord, and 
made a part of the original institution. Epist. 6^. ad. Ccecil, But 
no Protestant now believes either the one or the other. Adminis- 
tering the Lord's supper to infants arose early in the church. It 
is certain that this corruption existed in the second century. 
Cypnaw, in the ^/«VJ century, speaks of it, not as anew thing, 
but as an ordinary practice. De Lapsis, Sect. 13. Augustine 

* Mked Truth, p. 45. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 337 

calls it an apostolical tradition, represents it as a general custom, 
and expressly founds the propriety and necessity of it on JoJin vi. 
53. Now that this practice never had the least foundation either 
in scripture or apostolic example, our opponents, as well as our- 
selves, are fully agreed. Again ; Irenceus positively asserts that 
Christ remained on earth until he had reached old age, that he 
was at lediSiJifiT/ years old when he was crucified; and that 
" this was ascertained by the unanimous tradition, and positive 
" testimony of all the old men who had lived with St. John, and 
" the other apostles, from whom they all received this account, and 
" constantly bore witness to the truth of it." Lib. ii. cap. 39. 
But no one can open the Bible, without perceiving that this pretend- 
ed fact, in behalf of which the authority of inspired men is quoted, 
is totally false. To mention only one case more ; we learn from 
Eusebius, that, in the days of Irenoius, there arose a very fierce 
dispute respecting the proper time for the celebration of Easier. 
The churches of Asia took one side ; and the western churches, 
with Victor, bishop oi Rome, at their head, took the other. The 
former asserted, that they were supported by the authority of the 
apostles John and Philip. The latter, with equal confidence, 
plead the authority o^ Peter and Paw/ in justification of their prac- 
tice. Irenceus addressed a letter to Victor on the subject, in which 
there is found the following passage. " This diversity did not 
" begin in our time ; but long ago among our forefathers ; who, as 
" it seems, through negligence in the management of their charge, 
" handed down to their posterity a custom which through simpli- 
" city and ignorance had crept into the church."* And Socrates, 
the ecclesiastical historian, who wrote about a century after 
Eusebius, speaks of such observances generally in the following 
language. " Neither the ancients, nor the moderns, who have 
" studiously followed the Jews, had, in my opinion, any just or 
" rational cause for contending so much about this festival 
" (Easter.) For they considered not with themselves, that when 
" the Jewish religion was changed into Christianity, those 
" accurate observances of the Mosaic law, and the types, wholly 
'^ ceased. And this carries along with it its own demonstration. 
" For no one of Christ^s laws has permitted Christians to observe 

*Euseb.Hist.Eccles,Lih.y. Cap. 24. 
2 U 



338 LETTER V. 

«' the rites of the Jews, On the contrary, the apostle has express- 
^* \y forbid this, and does not only reject circumcision, but also 
** advises against contending about festival days. Moreover, it is 
"his admonition, that days, and months, and years, should in no 
" wise be observed. Besides, in his epistle to the Colossians, he 
'^ loudly affirms that such observances are a shadow. Men love 
" festival days because thereon they have a cessation from their la- 
" hour. Neither our Saviour nor his apostles have enjoined upon us 
" by any law to observe such days.'^* Here, then, is a large body 
of churches and bishops asserting that they have apostolical autho- 
rity for a certain practice. On the other hand there is a large 
body of equally respectable churches and bishops, who assert, with 
no less confidence, that they have apostolical authority for a 
different practice. And, to crown all, a third class, as much 
entitled to respect as either, pronounce, that both the former speak 
falsehood ; and that the plea of apostolical authority advanced by 
each, is equally and totally without foundation ! Who, after such 
notorious instances of either credulity or dishonesty, would give 
the least credit to a claim of apostolical institution, resting on 
no other ground than the assertion of the fathers? Could we find in 
them, therefore, the most direct and decisive claim of this kind, in 
behalf of diocesan episcopacy, it would be unworthy of confidence. 
But it is not true that any one of the fathers, within \\^e first four 
centuries, does assert the apostolical institution of prelacy. Dr. 
Bowden produces Cyprian as saying, that " Jesus Christ, and he 
" alone, has the power of setting bishops over the church to govern 
" it 5" that " Christ constitutes as well as protects bishops ;'' and 
that " it is by divine appointment a bishop is set over the church." 
He produces Origen^ as saying, " Shall I not be subject to the bi- 
" shop who is of God ordained to be my father ? Shall not I be 
" subject to the presbyter, who is, by divine vouchsafementy set 
" over me ?" He quotes Hilary as declaring, " The bishop is the 
" chief; though every bishop is a presbyter, yet every presbyter is 
" not a bishop." And also as asserting, that James, and Timothy 
and Titus, and the angels of the Asiatic churches were bishops, 
He cites Athanasiiis as remonstrating with one who declined a 
bishopric, in the following terms : " If you think there is no reward 

• Socrat. Eccles. Hist. Lib. v. cap. 22. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 339 

" allotted to the office of a bishop, you despise the Saviour who 
" instituted that office." He represents Chrysostomj as comment- 
ing on 1 Tim. iv. 4. in these words — " Paul does not speak of 
^^ presbyters, but o{ bishops, for presbyters did not ordain Timothy 
^^ a bishop." And finally he produces the fathers of the council 
of Aniioch, in the year 265, as declaring, that " the office of a bi- 
'^ shop is sacred and exemplary, both to the clergy and to the peo- 
" pis." Now, is it possible that Dr. Bowden, after devoting the 
best powers of his mind, for thirty years, to this controversy, has 
yet to learn, that all these quotations, and ten thousand more like 
them, are nothing to his purpose ? It is truly amazing ! Have not 
J, who am a Presbyterian, repeatedly said, in the foregoing sheets, 
that " bishops were, by divine appointment, set over the church ?" 
Do not Presbyterians perpetually speak of the office of bishop in 
their church as a " sacred office ?" And would any Presbyterian 
on earth scruple to say, that bishops were, and are ordained of 
God to be set over the church ; and also that every member of 
their flock, and even assistant preachers, within their parish, if 
not invested with a share in 1;he pastoral charge, are bound to be 
" subject to them ?" But no one, surely, could construe these ex- 
pressions, on our part, as implying that we believed in the divine 
institution of SMc/i ftzVzops as our episcopal brethren contend for. 
The truth is, these quotations, so pompously made, only prove two 
points ; first, that the fathers in question believed that there were 
bishops in the apostolic church ; which no man, in his senses, ever 
doubted: and secondly, that at the time when they wrote, bishops 
were considered as having some kind of superiority over common 
presbyters ; which is as little doubted as the former. In short, Dr. 
Bowden is deceived by the bare occurrence of the word bishop. 
Whenever he finds this word in the writings of the fathers, his 
imagination is instantly filled with prelates, and with all the pecu- 
liarities of the episcopal system. But before the smallest touch of 
inquiry this hallucination vanishes. Though bishops in the third 
and fourth centuries, had appropriated to themselves powers, which 
before had been enjoyed by others in common with them ; yet 
their office itself was of divine appointment. Dr. Bowden, indeed, 
says, and endeavours to persuade his readers, that the writers whom 
he quotes, declare the bishops which existed in the days of the 



340 LETTER V. 

apostles to have been just such bishops, as existed several centuries 
afterwards, in their own times — bishops in the prelatical sense of 
the word. But the doctor, with all his confidence, must pardon me 
for saying, this is not true. He has produced no passage which 
makes any such declaration, or which legitimately implies it ; nor 
is he able to produce such a passage, from all the stores of antiqui- 
ty, within the specified limits. 

Besides the direct quotations from the fathers, which prove that 
the primitive bishop was the pastor of a single congregation, I men- 
tioned, in my former letters, some facts, incidentally stated by ear- 
ly writers, which serve remarkably to confirm the same truth. Dr. 
Bowden treats these alleged facts with great contempt, and endea- 
vours to show that they are all either unfounded, or nothing to the 
purpose. I do not think it necessary to go over this part of the 
ground again. Of thej^t;e facts mentioned by me and assailed by 
Dr. B. there are only two of which it appears proper to take any 
further notice. 

The^rs^ of these is, the great number of bishops which eccle- 
siastical historians inform us were found, in early periods of the 
church, within small districts of country. Suppose a man in Europe 
were to be told, that there are, at this time, within the State of Neio 
York TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY bishops. What would be his con- 
clusion ? Why, certainly, that these could not be such bishops as 
are found in any church in which diocesan episcopacy is established. 
And if he were immediately afterwards informed that, within the 
whole State, there are only about two hundred and fifty organized 
congregations, he would confidently infer that there must be a bi- 
shop in every congregation, and, therefore, that the title bishop 
was considered as synonymous with that ofpasifor of a single church. 
This is precisely my argumeut in the present case. When we find 
in provincial synods, in early times, several hundred bishops con- 
vened ; when we find, upon inquiry, that these bishops and their 
bishoprics were all embraced in districts of country not much, if at 
all, more extensive than the State oiNeio York ; and when we have 
reason further to conclude that many parts, even of these districts, 
were not subjected to the empire of Christianity ; what must be our 
conclusion? Unquestionably, that which has been just mentioned. 
These bishops could have been no other than parish rectors, or 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 341 

pastors ; and the fact goes far toward corroborating the doctrine 
in support of which it was produced, viz. that primitive episcopacy 
was parochial, and not diocesan. 

Dr. Bowden does not deny that, in the council of Antioch in the 
third century, there were upwards of six hundred bishops. He 
does not deny that there were present at a ^roi^zwda? synod, in 
Africa, in the time of Augustine, between jive and six hnndred 
Bishops. Neither does he deny, that about the same time, accord- 
ing to Victor Uticensis, from that part of Africa in which the 
Vandalic persecution raged, six hundred and sixty bishops fled, 
besides the great number that were murdered and imprisoned, 
and inany more who were tolerated. Now when it is recollected that 
this persecution extended only to a small portion of Africa, and 
that it was carried on by one denomination of prefessing Chris- 
tians against another, we are necessarily led to conclude that there 
must have been in that section of Africa alone, at least two thou- 
sand bishops. Could these have been prelates, each with a num- 
ber of congregations and pastors under his care ? It is incredible. 
They could not have been more than the ordinary pastors of single 
congregations. It is not likely that organized churches were more 
thickly strewed in Africa, at that time, than at present in our 
own country ; nor can we, by any means, suppose that the per- 
secution in question prevailed through a district larger than the 
United States ; yet I am persuaded we have not in the United 
States many more than two thousand regular clergymen of all 
denominations. 

All that Dr. Bowden has to offer in opposition to this reasoning, 
is, that the " learned Bingham, in his Antiquities of the Church, 
has given a geographical description of the ancient bishoprics, as 
first made toward the close of the ninth century ;'' and that, ac- 
cording to his representation, there is no difficulty in accounting 
for the number of bishops found in the early councils. — To this 
testimony oi Bingham I might offer many objections. The work 
which contains it, though apparently much respected by Dr. Bow- 
den, is a work of great partiahty, and little credit. The sources 
from which the author derived his information, are by no means 
such as ought to inspire the confidence of any reasonable man. 
And, how any mortal can with confidence determine, from 
arrangements made in the ninth century, what were those of the 



342 LETTER V, 

tJdrd and fourth. Dr. Bowden may be able to explain ; I am not. 
But after all, what is the amount of Binglmm^s testimony ? It is 
that, even in the ninth century, many of the bishops' dioceses were 
of very small extent, little, if any, larger than many of our modern 
parishes. And is not this precisely the position for which I con- 
tend, and on which this whole argument is founded ? Besides, if 
bishoprics were thus small in the ninth century, have we not abun- 
dant proof that they were smaller still, in the third and fourth 
centuries, when it is certain that bishops were more numerous than 
they were several hundred years afterwards ? but this is not the 
only instance in which Dr. Bowden unwittingly betrays his own 
cause, and supports the Presbyterian doctrine. 

But, with respect to the African bishoprics. Dr. Boioden, 
following his suspicious guide, Bingham, takes a ground somewhat 
different. He asserts, that ^' in the whole extent of that country, 
" from the borders of Egypt to the western part of the peninsula, 
" comprehending a length of 2360 miles, and a breadth in some 
" places of 200, in others of 500 miles, there were but 466 dioce- 
" ses ; as appears, he adds, from the ICoUaiion of Carthage, the 
" abstract of St. Austin, and the Notitia of the African church, 
" made about fifty years after Austhi's death, and published by 
" SirmondusP On this statement I shall make no remark ; but 
shall leave it, to be treated as it deserves, by those who recollect the 
account given by Victor Uticensis of the number of bishops 
banished, murdered, &c. during the Vandalic persecution ; and 
also the numbers of bishops actually convened in provincial synods, 
about the same time. 

The next fact which I think it my duty further to notice, is, that 
in early times, it was customary for ihe flock of which the bishop 
was to have the charge, to meet together for the purpose of electing 
him ; and that he was always ordained in their presence. This 
was mentioned as another consideration which evinces that pri- 
mitive episcopacy was parochial, and not diocesan. Dr. Bowden 
denies the fact. He declares that there are no traces of the popular 
election of bishops during the first two hundred years after Christ 5 
and that so far as this practice ever prevailed, it arose in the third 
century, but was soon laid aside. In reply to these bold assertions, 
I shall only present the following quotation from Cyprian, Doctor 
Bowden^ favourite authority. Epist. 67- " Wherefore a people 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 343 

" who would obey the rules of the gospel should separate themselves 
j' from aVinful bishop, and should not partake with a profane priest 
<< in his sacrifices; especially since the chief power of choosing 
" worthy priests, and of rejecting unworthy ones, is lodged with 
" them : wliich rule we see proceeded originally from God's 
" authority, that a bishop should be chosen in the presence of the 
" people, in the most public, manner, and be approved as worthy 
" by the common suffrage of the whole body. God directs his 
" priest to be made so before all the congregation ; and thereby 
" shows us, that he would not have the ordinations of his bishops 
" performed, but in the presence, and with the privity of the peo- 
" pie. This rule, thus appointed hy God, we find afterwards 
" observed in the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter spoke to the 
" people, upon the point of substituting some one to be an apostle, 
" in the room of Judas, Nor do we find the apostles observing 
** this rule in the case of bishops and priests only, but even in the 
" ordination of deacons ; concerning which it is recorded in Acts, 
" vi. 2. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples 
" unto them, and said, Look ye out seven men of honest report 
^' full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom; and the saying pleased 
<* the whole multitude ; and they chose Stephen, 8fc, whom they set 
^^ before the apostles, 8fc. Wherefore the rule which we have 
" handed down to us from God himself, and from the practice of 
" his apostles, should be observed with all exactness, as it is, 
" indeed, already amongst us, and generally araonst the provinces 
" here; viz. that in celebrating our ordinations, the neighbouring 
<* bishops of the province, where a bishop is to be ordained for any 
" people,* should meet upon the place, and choose a bishop in the 
" presence of the people. This rule we find you observed in the 
" ordination of our colleague, Sabinus, who was unanimously cho- 
*' sen by the votes of all the people, and the approbation of the 
" bishops who were there assembled." 

Here Cyprian, who flourished about the middle of the third 

* How remarkably does Cyprian speak in the Presbyterian style ! To 
ordain a bishop /or, or oi'fir, a people, ovfocky is scarcely intelhg-ible on 
episcopal principles. The episcopal bishop oiJVew York, as such, is 
equally related to all the congregations belonging" to that communion in 
the State. In our church, a bishop is ordained over a particular ^c^ or 



344 LETTER V. 

century, declares that the election of bishops by tTie votes of all the 
people, was a regulation established by God himself, and'sanction- 
tdhy the practice of the apostles. And, lest the nature of this 
" election should be mistaken, he asserts that the chief poioer of 
choice lies with the people, by divine right. Nay, to render the 
point still more unequivocal, he represents the election in question 
as of the same nature with that of the deacons, in Acts vi. 2, 3, 
&c. in which it is expressly asserted, that the ichole multitude, or 
the body of the people, made the choice.* If this is not testimony 
that the method of popular election was practised in the days of 
Cyprian, and that that father considered it as "of divine appoint- 
ment, and as having been received in the church from the days of 
the apostles, then I know not how to understand or interpret his 
language. Dr. Boioden gives only a part of the above extract from 
Cyprian, and endeavours to prove from it that an actual election 
by the people is not at all intended. I trust, however, that of this 
gloss, on further consideration, he will be ashamed. 

Having thus, with all possible brevity, replied to such of Dr. 
Bowdenh strictures as appeared worthy of notice, I sh^ll select a 
few additional testimonies from the fathers, and request you to give 
them your serious attention. 

Hilary, in his commentary on i Timothy iii. affirms " The or- 
" dination of bishop and presbyter is one and the same" Could 
he possibly have said this, if they had been diflferent orders, and 
had received a different ordination ? 

The following passage from Basil, bishop of Cesarea, who was 
contemporary with Jerome, is also worthy of notice. — " Christ 
" says, Lovest thou me, Peter, more than these ? Feed my sheep. 
" And from thence he gave to all pastors and doctors equal power ; 
" whereof this is a token, that all of them, as Peter did, bind and 
« loose."t 

In the 4th Council of Carthage, the following canon was passed ; 



* It ought to be recollected, that the epistle from which the above 
extract is taken, was written to some people in Spain, who wished ad- 
vice in a case in which the right of the people to choose their own bish- 
op was immediately concerned ; and that it was written not in the name 
oi Cyprian only, but in that of the Jlfrican synod, 

I ConsLitul. Monastic. Cap. 22. p. 718. 



TESTIMONY OP THE FATHERS. 345 

" Let the bishop, when he is in the church, and sitting in the 
" presbytery, be placed in a higher seat ; but when he is in the 
" house, let him know that he is the colleague of the presbyters." 
Can. 35. By the same council, it was enacted, " that every bishop 
" should reside in a small house near the church in which he offi- 
" ciated"— that he should have " plain and even coarse household 
" furniture" — and that " he should give himself perpetually to 
" reading, praying, and preaching." Can. 14, 15. 20. 

In the Apostolical Constitutions the following passages are found, 
which Dr. Bowden is bound, on his own principles, to respect and 
admit. Lib. n. Cap. 27. " It behoves you, brethren, to bring 
" your sacrifices and oblations to the bishop, as to the high priest, 
" and offer them, either by yourselves, or by the deacons. Offer 
" the bishop also your first fruits and tythes, and your voluntary 
" gifts 5 for he knows the poor, and gives to every one what is 
'* convenient ; lest one receive twice or oftener the same day, or 
" the same week, and another receive not so much as once." Cap. 
31. " The deacon must give nothing to any poor man without the 
" bishop's knowledge and consent." Cap. 44. " The deacon must 
" be the bishop's eye, and ear, and mouth, nay, his heart and soul, 
** that the bishop may be only taken up with the weightier affairs 
" of his flock." Here it is evident that the business of the deacons 
was to take care of the poor. This is exactly the doctrine of the 
Presbyterians, and, what is much more important, of the New 
Testament. Here it is evident, also, that no poor man was to be 
relieved without the knowledge and approbation of the bishop 5 
who, it Is expressly said, is presumed to know all the poor, and to 
be able to give to every one what is convenient. Could this officer 
have been any other than the pastor of a single flock ? 

Again; the same Jj^osiolical Constitutions thus describe the 
ordinary solemnities of public worship. Lib. 11. Cap. bj. " When 
" thou, O bishop, hast called together the church of God, like the 
" master of a ship, require them to assemble often, with all 
" prudence and regularity of discipline. Command the deacons^ 
" as so many mariners, that they appoint convenient places for all 
" the brethren, as for so many passengers, with all care and de- 
" cency. And first let the house of worship be oblong, turned 
" toward the east, having seats (or pews) on both sides, towards 
" the east, and like a ship. In the middle place let the bishop's 
2X 



346 LETTER V. 

" seat be ; and on both sides of him let the 'presbyters sit. But let 
" the deacons stand ready for service, lightly clothed, for they are 
" like the mariners, and those that order the sides of the ship. By 
" their care, let the laymen sit quietly and orderly in one part of 
" the church : and the women also by themselves, abstaining from 
" talking. Let the reader, standing in the middle, in some high 
" place, read the books of Moses, ^c. The reading being finished, 
" let another sing the hymns of David. Then let our Acts (i. e. 
" the Acts of the Apostles) and the epistles, be recited. After 
" these things let the presbyters exhort the people ; and last of 
" all the bishop, who is like the master of the ship. Let the 
" door-keepers stand at the church doors, where the men enter ; 
" and the deaconesses where the women enter. If any be found 
" sitting out of his own place, let the deacon reprove him, and let 
" him be conducted to a proper place. Let the deacons take 
" care that none whisper, sleep, laugh, nod, &c. After the cate- 
" chumens and penitents have retired, let the deacons prepare for 
" the celebration of the Eucharist, ^c.'^ 

No one can read these rules without perceiving that they relate 
to the ordinary worship of Christian assemblies, when convened 
on the sabbath. To doubt this, is to fly in the face of common 
sense. Yet we find the presence of the bishop, in every public 
service, spoken of as indispensable. Is it not manifest, then, 
that this bishop could only have been the pastor of a single flock ? 

The sixth general council of Constantinople, which was held 
about the year 692, acknowledged the " scripture deacons to be no 
other than overseers of the poor ; and that this was the opinion of 
the ancient fathers." Can. l6. Here is another exphcit 
acknowledgment, that the apostolic constitution of the church, as to 
her officers, was notoriously changed, prior to the year 692. 

The council of ^fo; la Chapelle, held about the year 8l6, in 
the most unequivocal terms owned the original identity of bishops 
and presbyters, and expressly declared, that " the ordination of 
" the clergy was reserved to the high-priest only for the main- 
^* tenance of his dignity." Can. 8. Could this form of expression 
have been thought correct if presbyters were, by divine right, 
destitute of the power of ordaining ? Certainly not. 

Some other facts, which are ascertained from the writings of the 
fathers, and which were mentioned in my former letters, deserve 



TESTIMONY 'OP THE FATHERS. 347 

further consideration. We are informed, by several early writers, 
that the bishops, during the first three centuries, were alone consider- 
ed as authorized to administer baptism and the Lord's supper. From 
Ignatius, Tertullian, and Cyprian, we learn that Christians, in 
those days, received the eucharist from no hands but those of the 
bishop ; and that baptism was considered as his appropriate work, 
and never to be administered by any other hands, unless in cases 
of necessity. Again, in the 30th canon of the council oi Agatha, 
it is said — " It shall not be lawful for a presbyter in the church to 
" pronounce the benediction on the people, or to bless a penitent." 
Now, when it is notorious, that, in those days, the Lord's supper 
was administered every sabbath, and in some churches oftener ; 
when cases of baptism doubtless continually occurred 5 and v/hen 
pronouncing the benediction on the people made, then, as well as 
now, a part of every public service ; it is plain that the presence 
of a bishop was considered as indispensable, every Lord's day, in 
every worshipping assembly. Is it not evident, when this was the 
case, that the bishop could have been nothing less or more than 
the pastor of a single church ? 

Dr. Bowden does not attempt to deny the facts here alleged. 
They are, indeed, so abundantly confirmed by the voice of antiqui- 
ty, that he cannot possibly call them in question. But he endea- 
vours to evade their force by saying, that these writers only mean 
in general to represent the bishop as the fountain of all ecclesiasti- 
cal power; and to assert that none have a right to administer the 
ordinances of religion, excepting those who are empowered by 
him. And, in like manner, and on the same principle, he intimates, 
that the presbyters in the episcopal church, baptize and administer 
the eucharist in virtue of permission given them by the bishop for 
that purpose. This is an evasion unworthy of Dr. B's understand- 
ing and gravity. The writers above quoted, undoubtedly convey 
the idea, that administering baptism and the sacrament of the 
Lord's supper was the appropriated and peculiar work of the 
bishop as such ; that in cases oi necessity only they might commit 
these ordinances to other hands ; but that for every such dispensa- 
tion there must be a distinct expression of the bishop's will, and 
his leave expressly obtained- In short, the idea evidently meant 
to be conveyed is, that certain acts could be done regularly by the 
bishop only ; but that in cases of sickness, necessary absence, 



348 LETTER V. 

&c. he might empower some one to perform them as his substi- 
tute ; justaSj among Presbyterians, the administration of sealing 
ordinances is considered as the appropriate duty of each pastor 
within his parish ; though at the same time, if he have an assist- 
ant, or if any other ordained minister happen to be present, the 
pastor may, without transgressing any ecclesiastical law, request 
him to officiate in his room : it being always remembered, however, 
that for every such act, a new request, and a neio permission, on 
the part of the pastor, are necessary. But does this bear any resem- 
blance to the episcopal system, in which baptism and the Lord's 
supper are in no degree the appropriated duty of a prelate ; but 
according to which every presbyter, whether he have the charge of 
a congregation or not, is considered as possessing, in virtue of his 
general commissioUj a right to administer both the sacraments, at 
all times, and in all places, without consulting his bishop ? I am 
astonished that Dr. Bowden could so far impose on himself as to 
imagine that there is any resemblance between the two cases'. 

After all, then, that Dr. Bowden has urged against my exhibition 
of the testimony of the fathers, it appears that he has not succeed- 
ed in setting aside a single material fact, or in refuting a single 
important argument, which I had deduced from the works of those 
early writers. 

It appears, that the titles, bishop and presbyter, were promis- 
cuously applied to the same persons, not only in the apostolic age, 
but also till the close of the second century. This Dr. Bowden him- 
self acknowledges ; though he asserts, at the same time, that in the 
second century, it was seldom so applied. Now if the interchange- 
able application of these terms was continued until that time, 
and afterwards does not occur, must we not conclude, that about, 
or immediately after that time, some change took place in the 
arrangement of ecclesiastical dignities, which led to a more restrict- 
ed use of the word bishop ? No supposition can be more natural 5 
and it is precisely this for which we contend. 

It appears, that Dr. Bowden has not produced, and cannot pro- 
duce, a single sentence, from any writer within the first two^hun- 
dred years, which gives the least hint that ordination or conjirm- 
ation was in. fact confined to a particular order of prelates, or was 
considered as a right which ought to be so confined. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 349 

It appears, that presbyters are expressly represented by early 
writers, and particularly by Ignatius and Irenceus^ as the succes- 
sors of the apostles, and as presiding over the church. 

It appears, that in every worshipping assembly^ in the primitive 
church, the presence of a bishop was considered as indispensable. 
That it was the bishop's peculiar duty to preach, and to bless the 
people ; to administer baptism, and the Lord's supper ; to attend 
to the case of every poor person in his parish that needed rehef; 
to celebrate, or give his personal consent to the celebration, of all 
marriages among llie people of his charge ; to visit the sick; to in- 
struct the children of his flock statedly every week; and, in short, 
to perform all those duties which are now, and ever have been 
considered, as the proper work of a parish minister. 

It appears, after all that has been said to the contrary, that the 
number of bishops found, in early times, in small districts of coun- 
try, precludes the idea of their having been any other than parish 
ministers. 

It appears, that, even after a kind of prelacy arose, the bishops 
were still, for the most part, only pastors of single congregations ; 
and that there was little, if any other difference between them and 
their presbyters, than that which now subsists between pastors and 
their assistants, in Presbyterian churches, and rectors and their 
curates, in episcopal churches. 

It appears that Jerome, after all the unwearied pains which have 
been taken by high-churchmen, to set aside his testimony, does ex- 
plicitly declare, that Presbyterian parity was the apostolic and 
primitive form of church government ; and that this form was 
afterwards, and ^rac?MflZ/j/ , exchanged hv prelacy. And it is evi- 
dent, moreover, that some of the most learned and zealous episcopal 
divines have so understood him. 

It appears from Jerome, that the first approach towards prelacy 
was the standing moderatorship of one of the presbyters ; that 
this began in the church of Alexandria very early ; soon, if not 
immediately after the days oi Mark the evangelist; and that this 
was the only kind of clerical imparity that existed in that church 
until the middle of the third century, when it gave place to some 
higher encroachments of ecclesiastical ambition. 

It appears from several unexceptionable testimonies, that dea- 
cons in the primitive church, were not an order of clergy at all ; 



350 LETTER V. 

that they were only entrusted with the care of the poor, and em- 
ployed to assist in the administration of the Lord^s supper, as in 
the Presbyterian church at present 5 and that their gradually com- 
ing to be considered as a third order of clergy, was, like the claims 
of the prelates, an innovation. 

It appears, from the declaration of several fathers, besides Je- 
rome, that some change in the powers and prerogatives of bishops, 
did actuaUy take place, within the first three centuries ; and that 
several things were appropriated io bishops in the third dindi fourth 
centuries, which those writers assert were not appropriated to 
them in the apostolic age.* 

Finally, it appears, from all that has been said, that the writings 
of the fathers, instead of speaking " decisively" and " unanimous- 
ly" in favour of prelacy, as some of our high-toned episcopal breth- 
ren assert, do not produce a single testimony, within the prescribed 
limits, which gives the least countenance to the prelatical claim ; 
and that we are abundantly warranted (to repeat the language of 
Bishop Croft, formerly cited) in pronouncing, that the proofs 
brought to support this claim are altogether " weak ; no scripture ; 
" no primitive general council ; no general consent of primitive 
" doctors and fathers ; no, not one primitive father of note, speak- 
" ing particularly and home to the purpose" of its advocates. 

* Among the fathers mentioned in my former volume, as speaking of 
this change, is Hilary. I represent him as saying, " And in Egypt, even 
" at this day, the presbyters ordain (consignani) in the bishop's absence." 
Dr. Bowden asserts, that the word consignant has no reference to ordina- 
tion. He does not, indeed, appear to be certain what it c^oes signify; but 
is very confident that it cannot mean ordination. I forgot to notice this in 
its proper place; and have now neither time, nor room to make more 
than two remarks upon it. The first is, that several eminent episcopal 
divines, and, among others. Bishop Forbes, have understood Hilary as I 
do, to be speaking here oi ordination. The second remark is, tliat what- 
ever religious rite it is that Hilary vt^QVS to, it is something which the bi- 
shops, in his day, generally claimed as their prerogative; but which had 
not been always appropriated to them; and which even in his time, in 
the bishop's absence, the presbyters considered themselves as empower- 
ed to perform. This is sufficient for my purpose. 



( 351 ) 



LETTER VI. 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 



CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

In the sixth of ray former letters, I endeavoured to show that 
the great body of the Beformers, and other witnesses for the 
truthj in different ages and nations, were Presbyterians in princi- 
ple. This allegation, and the proof by which it is supported, Dr, 
Bowden, according to his usual manner, confidently rejects, and 
pronounces a total misrepresentation. With what justice he does 
this, a few remarks will enable you to determine. 

I asserted that the Waldenses were substantially Presbyterians, 
both in principle and practice; that among other points, in which 
they rejected the corruptions of the Romish church, they held, that 
there ought to be no diversity of rank among the ministers of the 
gospel ; and that bishops and presbyters, according to the word of 
God, and primitive usage, were the same order. All this. Dr. Bow- 
den denies ; and insists that the Waldenses were uniformly Epis- 
copal in their ecclesiastical character. The following testimonies 
will show on which side the truth lies. 

John Paul Perrin, who was himself a pastor among them, in 
his history of that people, delivers at length, "the discipline under 
" which the Waldenses and Alhigenses lived ; extracted out of 
" divers authentic manuscripts, written in their own language, 

*' SEVERAL HUNDREDS OP YEARS BEFORE LuTHER OR CaLVIN." 

From this work, the following extracts are made. Art. 2. " Of 
" pastors,** " All they that are to be received as pastors amongst 



352 LETTER VI. 

" us, whilst they are yet with their own people, are to entreat 
" ours, that they would be pleased to receive them to the ministry ; 
" and to pray to God that they may be made worthy of so great 
" an office. We also appoint them their lectures, and set them 
" their task, causing them to learn by memory all the chapters of 
" St. Matthew and St. John, and all the epistles that are canonical, 
" and a good part of the writings of Solomon, David, and the 
" prophets. Afterwards, having produced good testimonials, and 
" being well approved for their sufficiency, they are received with 
" imposition of hands into the office of teachers. He that is ad- 
" mitted in the last place, shall not do any thing without the leave 
" or allowance of him that was admitted before him. As also he 
" that was admitted first, shall do nothing without the leave of his 
" associates, to the end that all things, with us, may be done in 
" order. Diet and apparel are given unto us freely, and by way 
" of alms, and that with sufficiency, by those good people whom we 
" teach. Amongst other powers and abilities which God hath 
" given to his servants, he hath given authority to choose leaders, 
" to rule the people, and to ordain elders in their charges. — 
" When any of us, the aforesaid pastors, falls into any gross sins, 
" he is both excommunicated, and prohibited to preach." Art. 4. 
" Our Pastors do call assemblies once every year, to determine of 
" all affairs in a general Synod."* 

In another Confession of Faith, drawn up about the year 1220, 
they declare that the functions of ministers consist in " preaching 
the word and administering sacraments," and that " all other minis- 
terial things may be reduced to the aforesaid." Speaking of the 
v\Xq-o{ confirmation, and of the Popish claims that it must be ad- 
ministered by a bishop, they assert, that " it has no ground at all 
" in Scripture ; that it was introduced by the DeviVs instigation, 
" to seduce the people; that by such means they might be induced 
" the more to believe the ceremonies, and the necessity of the 
« hishopsjn 

In the same work, (chap. 4.) it is expressly and repeatedly 
asserted, that the Synods of the Waldenses were composed of 

* Pehbin's History of the Old Waldenses, Part ii. Book v. Chap. 7. 
t Ibid. Chap. 8. 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 353 

ministers and elders. This mode of speaking is surely not Epis- 
copal. 

The same historian tells us, that Waldo, (from whose name that 
of the Wcddenscs is said to be derived,) " upon his departure from 
** Lyons, came into Danpldny, and thence, having erected some 
" churches, and laid the foundation of those which have been mi- 
" raculously preserved there to this day, he went into Languedoc, 
" and left some notable pastors there, who set up and governed 
** those churches, which afterwards cost the pope and bis clergy so 
" much pains to destroy."* Now it is certain that Waldo himself 
was no prelate ; neither can we suppose that the pastors whom he 
left in Languedoc were prelates. Yet these pastors set up and 
governed churches. 

In perfect coincidence with all this, is the testimony of Gillis, in 
his History of the WaJdenses. This writer, like Perrin, was one 
of the pastors of that people, and therefore perfectly qualified to 
give an account of their peculiar doctrines and practices. He 
speaks familiarly of the pastors of their churches, in the Presby- 
terian style. He says, '^ These pastors, in their ordinary assem- 
" blies, came together and held a synod once a year, and most 
" generally in the month of September, at which they examined 
" the students, and admitted them to the ministry. ^^ Chap. ii. p. 12. 

In their Confession of Faith, which Gillis inserts at length, in 
the " addition" to his work, p. 490, and which he expressly in- 
forms us was the confession of the ancient as well as the modern 
Waldenses ; in Article 31, they declare, " It is necessary for the 
" church to have pastors esteemed sufficiently learned, and exem- 
plary in their conduct, as well to preach God's word, as to admi- 
" nister the sacraments, and watch over the sheep of Jesus Christ, 
" together with the elders and deacons, according to the rules of 
" good and holy church discipline, and the practice of the pririii- 
'* tive church." 

Here is better testimony than Thuanus or Walsingham, than 
Mosheim or Ailix. Here are the declarations of the Waldenses 
themselves. And I will venture to say that there is not a syllable 
in the above extracts which has the most distant appearance of 

* Part II, Book ii. Chap. 9. 
2 Y 



354 LETTER VI. 

prelacy. On the contrary, they all bear the most decisive indica- 
tions of Presbyterian parity. But besides this, Bellarmine acknow- 
ledges that the Waldenses denied the divine right of prelacy. Me- 
dina, m the council of Trent, declared that the Waldenses were 
of the same mind with Aerius on this subject. And the learned 
Episcopalian, professor Raignolds, in his famous letter to Sir 
Francis Knolli/s, asserts, that the Waldenses, and all others who 
had distinguished themselves as opposers of popery, and as reform- 
ers of the church, for 500 years, prior to the seventeenth century , 
had uniformly taught that " all pastors, whether styled bishops 
" or priests J have one and the same authority by the word of 
" God." 

Dr. Bowden also insists, in opposition to my statement, that the 
Bohemian churches were episcopal, in his sense of the word. In 
this, however, as in the former case, he is contradicted by the most 
unquestionable testimony. In their Confession, there is not only 
a profound silence as to any distinction or difference of degrees 
among pastors 5 but, what is more decisive, they place ordination, 
and excommunication, as well as preaching the gospel, not in the 
power of one, but in the hands oi presbyters and brethren of the 
ministry. And in their Book of Order, or Discipline, p. 20, we 
have the following express words. " It is true, the Bohemians have 
" certain bishops, or superintendents, who are conspicuous for age 
" and gifts ; and chosen by the suffrages of all the ministers, for 
" the keeping of order, and to see that all the rest do their office. 
" Four, or five, or six such have they, as need requires ; and each 
" of these has his diocese. But the dignity of these above other 
" ministers, is not founded in the prerogative of honours or reve- 
^^ nues, hut oHabours and ca?-es for others. And, according to 
" the apostles' rules, a presbyter and bishop are one and the same 
" thing."' But it is to be presumed that Dr. Bowden will not doubt 
a moment longer, when he is told, that even his own favourite high- 
church historian, Dr. Heylin, explicitly grants that the Bohemian 
churches were not episcopal, either in principle or practice. In 
his History of the Presbyterians, p. 409, 410. there is the follow- 
ing decisive passage. " About the year 1400, we find a strong 
" party to be raised amongst the Bohemians, against some super- 
" stitions and corruptions in the church of Rome ; occasioned, as 
« some say, by reading the works of Wickliffe, and by the diligence 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 255 

" of Picardiis, a Fleming, as is affirmed by some others, from whom 
" they had the name of Picards. Cruelly persecuted by their own 
*^ kings, and publicly condemned in the council of Constance, they 
" continued constant, notwithstanding, to their own persuasions. 
" In this condition they remained till the preaching o{ Luther, and 
" the receiving of the Augustan Confession in most parts of the 
" empire, which gave them so much confidence as to purge them- 
" selves from all former calumnies, by publishing a declaration of 
" their faith and doctrine ; which they presented at Vienna to the 
" Archduke Ferdinand, about ten years before chosen king oiBo- 
" hernia ; together with a large apology prefixed before it. By 
" which Confession it appears that they ascribe no power to the 
" civil magistrate in the concernments of the church ; that they 
** had fallen upon a way of ordaining ministers amongst them- 
*^ selves, without recourse unto the bishop, or any such superior 
" ojicer as a superintendent ; and finally, that they retained the 
" use of excommunication, and other ecclesiastical censures, for 
" the chastising of irregular and scandalous persons." 

As to the observations made by Dr. Bowden and his clerical 
friend in Philadelphia, on the testimony of Thuanus, Enceas Syl- 
vius, and Walsingham, respecting the Waldenses and the Bohe- 
mian Brethren, I consider them as unworthy of notice. It would 
be easy for me to show, that these writers really sa}-^ what I ascribe 
to them ; and that they are entitled to credit. It would also be easy 
to produce passages from Alphonso de Castro, Voetius, and other 
learned writers, who, in the most positive terms, give the same 
account of those celebrated witnesses for the truth. But it is un- 
necessary. The authority of their own historians and confessions 
of faith is paramount to every other.* 

* Among- the few gratifications which this controversy has afforded 
me, none of the least is, that it has led me to peruse, with particular care, 
the ^js/ory and the confessions of the Waldenses, who are allowed, by all pro. 
testants, to have been the purest part of the Christian church during the 
dark ages. Their coincidence with our church, in almost all respects, 
both of doctrine and discipline, is really remarkable. Our Baptist breth- 
ren, among other advocates of error, have sometimes ventured to assert, 
with confidence, that the Waldenses were anti-psedohaptisis. I take 
for granted that those who have made this assertion, never read the an- 
cient confessions of that celebrated people. In those confessions, and 
other authentic documents concerning them, the pxdobaptist doctrine is 
unequivocally and strongly maintained. 



35e LETTER VI. 

Dr. Bowden does not deny that WickUffe held the doctrine of 
Presbyterian parity. But in order to diminish the weight of this 
fact, he endeavours to destroy the character ofthat illustrious reform- 
er, by repeating the accusations brought against him by some 
mm\ett{. papists. I must say that I expected more prudence, if not 
more consistency, from this gentleman. It is really astonishing to 
find a protestant divine so often obliged to avail himself of the ar- 
guments, the cavils, and even the violence of papists, in order to 
support his cause. But his attempt, in this instance, is as impotent 
as it is reprehensible. WickUffe will continue to be hailed as the 
" morning star of the reformation," and honoured as an eminent 
" witness for the truth," and that by the great body of learned and 
pious Episcopalians, as well as others ,when the slanders with which 
hi? character has been aspersed shall have " gone the way of all 
such mis-begotten things." 

With respect to Tyndal, Lamhert, Barnes, Hamilton, and other 
distinguished martyrs for the truth in G?'eat Britain, before the 
time of Cramner, it is notorious that they, with one voice, main- 
tained the doctrine of Presbyterian parity. Dr. Bowden, indeed, 
denies this, with respect to Tyndal and Lamhert, or rather 
endeavours to put an unnatural gloss on their language. It really 
surprises me^that such an attempt should be made by a gentleman 
who professes to be acquainted with the history of the reformation 
in Britain. 

But Dr. Bowden seems to be most of all offended at my having 
asserted, that archbishop Cranmer, and the fathers of the reform- 
ation in England, generally, believed that*bishop and presbyter 
were the same, by divine right ; and that ministerial parity was 
the doctrine and practice of the primitive church. He denies this 
position with warmth and confidence; and insists that those vene- 
rable reformers were firm believers in the divine institution of 
prelacy. Mr. Hoio takes the same ground, with even greater 
warmth, and with much acrimonious remark. On this point, my 
observations shall be iew and short. 

Dr. Bowden, in many of his statements concerning the reforma- 
tion in England, avowedly relies on the authority of Heylin and 
Collier. With respect to these writers, I think proper, once for 
all, to declare, that I place no reliance either on the candour or the 
truth of their representations. And of course that no alleged fact, 
which does not rest on some other testimony, will be acknow- 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 357 

ledged by me. The learned and able editors of the Christian 
Observer, who, as was before observed, are warm Episcopalians , 
speak of these writers in the following manner : " Mr. Daubeny," 
say they, " in many of his references to historical facts, and in the 
" deductions made from them, professedly follows authorities of a 
" highly exceptionable nature. Every reader who is conversant 
" with the present subject of debate, knows how forcibly this 
" remark applies to the writings of Collier and Heylin. We 
" speak from a careful comparison of what they have written, with 
" the sources from which they drew, or might have drawn their 
" materials — when we affirm, that in all matters immediately 
" bearing upon the Calvinistic controversy, they are most unsafe 
" guides. Of Dr. Heylin, in particular, we have no hesitation in 
" saying, that we do not know of any author, ancient or modern, in 
" whose pages is to be found a larger portion of false reasonings, 
" incorrect statements, and palpable misrepresentations."* Bishop 
Burnet, in the preface to his History of the Reformation, declares, 
" Either Heylin was very ill informed, or very much led by his 
" passions 5 and being wrought on by most violent prejudices, 
" against some that were concerned in that time, delivers raaivy 
^' things in such a manner, and so strangely, that one would think 
*' he had been secretly set on to it by those of the church of Borne. 
" In one thing he is not to be excused, that he never vouched any 
" authority for what he writ, which is not to be forgiven any who 
" write of transactions beyond their own time, and deliver new 
" things not known before. So that upon what grounds he wrote 
" a great deal of his book we can only conjecture, and many in 
" their guesses are not apt to be very favourable to him." Of the 
same wretched bigot and calumniator, Bishop Barlow uses this 
strong language — " Peter Heylin^s angry, and (to our church and 
truth) scandalous writings."t 

I had stated that the Bishop^s Book composed by Cranmer, and 
several other prelates, in 1537, and subscribed by nineteen bishops, 
and the lower house of convocation, expressly declared that in th6 
New Testament, there is no mention made of any other ecclesias- 
tical orders " than deacons or ministers, and presbyters or bishopsj" 

* Christ. Ohs. Vol. III. p. 429. 

t Barbw's Genuine Remains, p. 181. 



358 LETTER VI. 

I also asserted, that another book, drawn up and published by the 
same high authority, in 1542, taught, in the most explicit terras, 
a similar doctrine. To this Dr. Bowden replies that he has ex- 
amined Collier^ who undertakes to give an abstract of both these 
books, and that he does not find in him" a syllable of what I have 
quoted, but much to the contrary." My authorities are Calamyh 
Defence of Moderate Nonconformity, p. 91. and NeaPs History of 
the Furitans, in both which the writers profess to quote the very 
words of the books in question : And whether a direct and posi- 
tive statement, by authors of undoubted character, does not more 
than countervail the silence of a writer, who, as Episcopalians 
themselves acknowledge, is not to be depended on, let every im- 
partial reader decide. 

Now when it is considered, that those venerable reformers un- 
questionably drew up and published the books which have been 
just mentioned : When we find professor Raignolds, one of the 
most learned and pious episcopal divines of his day, and who lived 
within about half a century after Cranmer and his associates, 
expressly asserting that they did not place prelacy on the footing 
of divine right:* When we find bishop Stillingfleet, in his Ireni- 
cum, and several other eminent episcopal divines, strongly assert- 
ing the same thing, not as their opijiion merely, but as difact: 
And when we find Dr. White, of Pennsylvania, now bishop of the 
episcopal church in that state, declaring, after the best examination 
that he had been able to give the subject,\^that those illustrious 
divines did not establish or defend prelacy as a matter of divine 
rightt — When these things are considered, I presume every 
impartial judge will admit, that they form a mass of evidence 
incomparably more weighty than the opinions of Dr. Bowden and 
Mr. How, with the partial and prejudiced Collier to aid them. 

I asserted, that, about the year 1547, in an assembly of divines 
called by Edward VI. archbishop Cranmer, injanswer to a question 
respecting the office of bishops and presbyters, replied, " bishops 
and priests were at one time, and were not two things, but one 
office in the beginning of Christ's religion." And that two other 



* See my former Letters, p. 160. 

^ The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States considered. 
12mo. Philad. 1782. 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 359 

bishops, together with Dr. Redmayn, and Dr. Cox^ delivered a 
similar opinion in still stronger terms ; and that several of them 
quoted Jerome as a decisive authority in support of their opinion. 

To this, Dr. Bowden replies, in the Jirst place, that he can see 
nothing in Cranmerh answer inconsistent with Episcopal pre-emi- 
nence. Indeed ! Were any one to ask Dr. B. himself, as King 
Edward did that assembly, " Whether bishops or priests were 
first ; and if the priests were first, whether the priests made the 
bishops ?" would he answer as Cranmer did ; that bishops and 
priests were not two things in the beginning of Christ's religion, 
but one and the same office ? Could he lay his hand on his heart, 
and say that he would consider such an answer as agreeable to his 
principles ? The archbishop not only declares that the names of 
bishop and priest were interchangeably applied ; but that they 
were owe thing or one office in the beginning of Christ's religion. 
The Bishop of London's answer, in the same assembly, is in a 
similar strain. " I think," says he, " the bishops weve Jirst; and 
" yet I think it is not of importance whether the priest then made 
*' the bishop, or the bishop the priest ; considering (after the sen- 
" tence of St. Jerome) that in the beginning of the church there 
" was no (or if it were, very small) difference between a bishop 
" and a priest, especially touching the signification." The man 
who can say that this answer only asserts the indiscriminate appli- 
cation of names in the primitive church, must have a strange me- 
thod of interpreting language. 

Dr. B.'s second objection to my argument drawn from this 
answer, is, that the assembly, in which Cranmer, and his associates 
delivered these opinions, was not called in 1547, but seven years 
before, in the reign of Henry VIII. when the minds of the Reform- 
ers, just emerging from the darkness of Popery were unsettled and 
immature. He asserts, that afterwards, on further inquiry, they 
entertained a different opinion. In this representation also Mr. 
How concurs. 

It is certain that Stilling jleet, with the original manuscripts re- 
lating to this subject in his hand, declares that this assembly was 
called by Edward VI. about the year 1547. It is certain that 
Bishop Burnet quotes the very same manuscripts, under the name 
of Bishop StillingfieeVs. And it is equally certain that the former 



360 LETTER VI. 

does not charge the latter with mistake in his date. I readily grant, 
however, that when the several passages of these two writers are 
carefully compared, it is not easy to decide on the correct date, 
with absolute certainty.* But at whatever period this assembly 
was called, Bishop Burnet speaks of the answers which its mem- 
bers gave in the following strong terms of approbation. " This 
" paper the reader will find in the collection, of which, though it 
" be somewhat large, yet I thought Such pieces were of too great 
" importance not to be communicated to the world ; since it is 
" perhaps as great an evidence oi \\\q ripeness of their proceedings, 
" as can be shown in any churchy or anij age of it.'^t 

Both Dr. Bowden and Mr. How assert that Archbishop Cran- 
mer published a Catechism in 1548, and a Sermon, about the same 
time, in both which they assure us he delivered doctrines " as high- 
ly Episcopal as any thing can be." Dr. Bowden has given a 
short extract from the latter of these publications, and took care, 
no doubt, to select the strongest and most decisive passage he 
could find. But, strange to tell ! this passage afibrds no proof 
that the archbishop believed in the divine institution of prelacy at 
all. Tt speaks of the ministry of the word being derived from the 
apostles by the imposition of hands. And do not many Breshy- 
terians speak the same language ? It speaks of the apostles making 
bishops and priests. And does not every Presbyterian grant that 
there were many presbyters in the apostles' days who had no pas- 
toral charge, and who were, of course, no bishops ? Is Dr. B. un- 
able to understand this ? or does he close his eyes against it? I 
take for granted that all Cranmer^s " high church notions,'* as Mr. 
How calls them, if candidly examined, would be found to be of a 
similar kind. 

Dr. Bowden admits that in the 13th year of the reign "of Eliza- 
beth, there was an act passed which admitted into the Church of 
England, those who had received ordination in the foreign reformed 

* Dr. Bowden undoubtedly mistakes when he dates this assembly in 
1538, and assigns as a reason that a certain paper is signed by FoXy Bishop 
o^ Hereford, who died that year. Dr. B. is here confounding two very 
different things, as he will instantly see by comparing several passages 
in BumeU Vol. i. p. 248. 289. Collection XXI. Addenda V. 

t Hist, Eef, I. p. 289. 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 361 

churches, on their subscribing the articles of faith. Now as there 
was no other, strictly speaking, than Presbyterian ordination in 
any of the foreign reformed churches, it is manifest that this was a 
great national acknowledgment of the validity of such ordinations. 
Dr. Bowden contends, however, that, from the language of Strype^ 
in his Annals, it is evident that this act was not designed to recog- 
nize as valid the ordinations in a// the reformed churches; but only 
to comprehend, besides the Papists, ^' such ministers as had 
received their orditiaticgi in some of those churches when they were 
in exile under Queen MaryP And by the phrase " some of the 
foreign reformed churches," Dr. B. thinks was probably meant, 
the churches of Sweden, Denmark, and Bohemia, which he insists 
were episcopal in their form. It will, hereafter, be shown, that 
none of these churches were episcopal in Dr. Bowdenh sense of 
the word ; and, therefore, that the ordinations in question, even if 
they had been performed in those churches, would have been 
nothing to his purpose. But this is not the worst part of the 
Doctor's blunder. It is notorious that not one of the exiles under 
the reign of Mary ever settled in Sweden, Denmark, or Bohemia, 
or ever received ordination in any of those countries. I appeal to 
a/Z the accounts of their exile, by whomsoever written, for the truth 
of this fact. Some of those persecuted protestants went to France 
and Flanders ; some to Geneva ; and others to those parts of 
Germany and Switzerland, in which the reformation had taken 
place, particularly to Embden, Strashurg, Zurich and Frankfort, 
in all which countries, no other ordination than that hy presbyters 
existed. I repeat it, none of the exiles either settled in Sweden, 
Denmark, or Bohemia, or were ordained there. Was Dr. Bowden 
ignorant of this fact ? Or, if he knew it, to what shall we ascribe 
his erroneous representation ? But I forbear further to expose, 
what, I trust, was only an unintentional error. 

As another proof that the reformers of the Church of England 
did not hold the excluding, jwre divino doctrine of prelacy which 
many of their successors in that Church have espoused, I produced 
a public document under the hand of the Archbishop Grindal, in 
which he gave a formal license to a Presbyterian minister, as one 
who had been " admitted and ordained to sacred orders, and the 
holy ministry, hy the imposition of hands, according to the laudable 
form and rite of the reformed Church of Scotland.^^ 
2Z 



362 LETTER VI. 

To take away the force of this concession on the part of Arch- 
bishop Grindaly Dr. Bowden, with much zeal, urges several con- 
siderations. 

The Jirst is, that this prelate was not one of the reformers of the 
Church of England, at all; and that it is nothing less than imposi- 
tion on my readers to place him among them. This is truly a 
wonderful assertion ! Has Dr. Boiaden ever read Strype's Life 
of Grindal? If he has not, I would recommend to him to procure 
and peruse it, before he undertakes again to write on this subject. 
From that work he will learn, that Grinded was an active, popular 
clergyman, and a decisive advocate of the reformation in ihe reign 
of Edward VI. ; that he was nominated to a bishopric by that 
monarch ; that he was so obnoxious to the Catholic party, on ac- 
count of his exertions in the cause of the reformation, as to be com- 
pelled to leave the kingdom, on the accession of Marij to the 
throne; that, immediately on his return, he, with others, was em- 
ployed by queen Elizabeth in reforming the liturgy and offices of 
the Church; that he was soon made bishop of London; that he 
was afterwards successively promoted to the Archbishoprics of 
York and Canterbury, in all which stations he signalized himself 
as a reformer. But, " he was not archbishop until the reign of Eliza- 
beth.^^ And was no man ever ranked among the reformers unless 
he was an Archbishop ? Then Cranmer did not become a reformer 
until some years after he had begun to struggle for the purification 
of the Church ; and Ridley, Latimer, and Hooper, to say nothing 
of several others, their illustrious contemporaries, were never re- 
formers at all ! But this plea is really beneath further notice. 

Another mode of getting rid of this difficulty, to which Dr. Bow- 
den resorts, is to attack the character of Grindal, and to endea- 
vour to make it appear, that he was so ^^ fanatical'^ and " irregular,*' 
that his opinion or decision on a subject of this kind ought not to 
be considered as of any weight. I am perfectly willing to leave 
this insinuation to be estimated as it deserves, by all who are toler- 
ably acquainted with the history of the Reformation in England, 
and the agency of the pious archbishop in that glorious struggle. 

Bui, one of the most extraordinary parts of Dr. Bowden^s work, 
is that in which he attempts to show that the reformed Church of 
Scotland, as first established by Knox and his associates, was not 
Presbyterian but prelatical in its form. Nay, he goes so far as to 



TESTIMONY OP THE REFORMERS. 363 

assert in confor;nity with the misrepresentations of Sage, Collier, 
Spotswoody and Skinner, that in that church ministerial " parity 
" was disclaimed ; that superintendents with Episcopal jurisdiction 
" were established ; and that Presbyterianism had no existence in 
"that country until 1580, twenty years after the reformation was 
"established." The man who can write thus, discovers a want 
of information, or a force of prejudice which renders him a much 
more proper object of compassion than of resentment. The state- 
ment is not only not true, but diametrically contrary to the truth, 
and advanced in direct opposition to all authentic testimony. This 
is so notoriously the case, that I did not suppose it possible for any 
well informed man, at the present day, to give such a representation 
as Dr. Bowden has given. 

The model of the Reformed Church of Scotland, as established 
in 1560, appears in the First Book of Discipline, drawn up by 
Knox and others. In that book, in chapter fourth, the ministry 
is spoken of, as consisting of a single order, in the same language 
which has been common among Presbyterians ever since ; nor is 
there the least hint given of different ranks or grades of ministers, 
much less of such an hierarchy as was then established in England, 
In the 7th chapter, Riding Elders and Deacons are described, and 
their duties pointed out ; the former to assist the minister in the 
government of his flock, and the latter to take care of the poor. 
And in other parts of the work, the government of the Church by 
Kirk Sessions, Presbyteries, and Synods, is expressly laid down. 
If this is not the essence oi Presbyterianism, then \ know not what 
is. It is true, in that book, the appointment often or twelve minis- 
ters, under the name of superintendents \s recognized and directed. 
But it is as true, that the same book declares, that this appoint- 
ment was made, not because superintendents were considered as 
of divine institution, or an order to be observed perpetually in the 
Kirk; but because they were compelled to resort to some such 
expedient, at that time, when the deficiency of well qualified 
Protestant ministers was so great, that if some of the more able and 
pious had not been entrusted with much larger districts than single 
parishes, in which to preach the Gospel, to plant Churches, and 
to superintend the general interests of religion, the greater part of 
the country must have been given up, either to popish teachers, or 
to total ignorance. And it is as true, that the powers with which 



364 LETTER VI. 

those superintendents were invested, were, in all respects, essential- 
ly different from those of prelates. They did not confirm ; they did 
not exclusively ordain^ they had no episcopal consecration ; they 
had none of the prerogatives of prelates 5 they were entirely subject 
to the synodical assemblies, consisting of ministers and elders; 
they were appointed by men who were known to be Presbyterians 
in principle; who, in the very act of appointing them, disclaimed 
prelacy as an institution of Christ ; and who gave the strongest 
evidence that they viev/ed the subject in this light, by refusing to 
make the former bishops superintendents, lest their office should 
be abused, and afterwards degenerate into the " old power of the 
prelates." In short, the superintendents were only the agents of 
the synods, for managing the affairs of the Church, in times 
of peculiar difficulty and peril ; and whenever these times ceased, 
or rather before, their office was abohshed. They were no more 
inconsistent with Presbyterian parity, than the practice of appoint- 
ing professors of divinity, whose certificates shall be necessary 
to the introduction of every candidate into the ministry. Yet such 
professors have been appointed in every Presbyterian Church that 
was able to provide for their support. 

In 1 578, the Second Book of Discipline was agreed upon and pub- 
lished by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. In this 
book the plan of church government laid down, is as perfectly Pres- 
byterian as ever was formed. Nay more, it contains a positive decla- 
ration that diocesan episcopacy is a " corruption 5" that a scriptural 
bishop is the pastor of a single church or congregation; and that the 
plan of giving to certain ministers, under the name ofbishopSj a pre- 
latical authority over a number of congregations, and their pastors, 
is a popish error. It even goes so far as to require that all such bishops 
then in the kingdom renounce their unscriptural title and authority, 
and submit to the Presbyterian order of the Church, or that they be 
deposed from all ecclesiastical office, and excommunicated. In all 
this, the assembly was supported by an act of parliament ; and thus 
prelacy was by law abolished. And yet, " Presbyterianism had 
no existence in Scotland until 1580 !" I charitably hope that Dr. 
BowdeUf when he made this representation, had never read either 
the First or Second Book of Discipline, or the Acts of the General 
Assembly which accompanied those public documents. 

It is readily granted that the reformers in Scotland carried on 



* TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 365 

this glprious work with much difficulty, and amidst great opposition. 
It is granted that in 1572, and again 1584, the most violent exer- 
tions were made, in the former case, by some ambitious nobleman 5 
and in the latter, by the king, to restore prelacy ; and that in both 
cases, there was a partial and nominal restoration of it for a few 
months, in the same manner as the progress of the Reformation 
was more than once, and grievously, interrupted in England. But 
it is notorious that, this was in opposition to the views and wishes 
of all the principal reformers. It is notorious, that, even in those 
intervals in which there were nominal bishops, candidates for the 
ministry were ordained, not by them, but 6y tJie presbyteries. And 
it is equally notorious that, from the first organization of presbyte- 
rianism in 1560, until it was ultimately and permanently established, 
the great body both of the clergy and laity, who manifested friend- 
ship to the reformation at all, were decided Presbyterians. For 
the truth of this representation, I appeal to the public and accre- 
dited documents of the church ; I appeal to Knox, to Galderwood, 
to IFoodroWy to Crookshank^ to amj historian, who is not carried 
away with the violent, I had almost said insane prejudice of Sage, 
Spotswood, and Colliery by whom subsequent writers, who ought 
to have known better, have suffered themselves to be misled. Even 
Dr. Heylin, with all the bitterness of his prejudice, in his Hi&tory 
of Presbyterianism, gives a view of the reformation in Scotland 
which I cannot help thinking will excite a blush in Dr. B. if he 
should ever peruse it, and should remember what he himself has 
written. 

Though Heylin was a violent enemy of every thing like PreS' 
bytery ; and though he wished to make it appear that the first 
Scottish reformers did not admit of ministertal parity, in the strict 
sense of the word ; yet he was forced to acknowledge that they 
adopted a plan of church government, of which the '' predominant" 
features were Presbyterian. And he confesses, further, that even 
the small deviations from the strict Presbyterian model which took 
place, were admitted by Knox on account of the then " unsettled 
state of the Church.'^* The same historian, in another work, 
declares more strongly, " Being once settled in orderly and con- 
" stant hierarchy, they (the Scotch) held the same, until the refor- 

* Bist. Presbyter. B. v. § 29. 



3e€y LETTER VI. 

" maiion began by Kwoa; 5 when he and his associates, approving 
"the Genevan Platform, took the advantage of the minority of King 
"James VI. to introduce Presbyterian discipline, and suppress the 
«« Bishops."* 

Accordingly, soon after the first establishment of the reforma- 
tion in Scotland, Beza^ whose warm attachment to Presbyterian- 
ism is universally known, wrote to Knox in the following language. 
" But I would have you, my dear Knox, and the other brethren, 
" to remember that which is before your eyes ; that as bishops 
" brought forth the papacy ; so false bishops, the relics of popery, 
" shall bring epicurism into the world. They that desire the good 
" and safety of the church, let them take heed of this pest ; and 
" seeing you have put that plague to flight, I heartily pray you 
«* never to admit again ; although it may seem plausible, under 
** the pretence of keeping unity 5 which pretence deceived the an- 
" cient fathers, even the best of them.'^t 

Dr. Bowden seems to think that, {(bishops had been the leading 
reformers in Scotland, as they were in England, prelacy would 
have been retained in the former, as well as in the latter. This is 
only saying that even good men, who enjoy high ecclesiastical pre- 
eminence, and corresponding revenues, when two plans of reform- 
ation are offered them, will be most likely to embrace that which 
will secure the continuance of their honours and emoluments. And 
does Dr. Boioden really think that this affords a solid argument in 
favour of prelacy ? I cannot possibly suppose a gentleman of his 
character to be so far gone in absurdity. Besides, the doctor does 
not appear to know, that three Scotch prelates, viz. the bishops of 
Orkney, Galiuay, and Caithness, did embrace the reformation, 
and became Presbyterian, or parochial bishops. And, what is 
still more worthy of notice, it is well known, not only that Knox 
himself was in episcopal orders, and was a popular preacher in 
England, in the reign of Edward VI. ; but also that a bishopric 
was offered him, which he refused, because he considered prelacy 
as unlawful ; or as having " quid commune cum anti-christo.^'f 
Accordingly, when John Douglass was made tulchan (or nominal) 

* CosmographiCf p. 332. 

t Epist. 79. 

t Fulier's Lives of the Divines^ 



TESTIMONY OP THE REFORMERS. 367 

Bishop of St. Andrews, Knox utterly refused to ordain him, de- 
nouncing anathemas both against the giver and the receiver. And, 
when this refusal was imputed to unworthy motives, he publicly 
declared, in a sermon, on the next sabbath, " I have refused a 
" greater bishopric than ever it was ; and might have had it with 
" the favour of greater men than he hath this : but I did and do 
" repine, for discharge of my conscience, that the church of Scot- 
" land be not subject to that order.'^*^ 

Let us now pass from the reformers of Great Britain to those 
of the continent oi Europe. 

Dr. Bowden would persuade us that Luther also believed in the 
divine right of diocesan episcopacy. Of this reformer he speaks 
in the following terms. " As to Luther, he professes that if the po- 
" pish bishops would cease to persecute the gospel,'' he and those 
of his communion, " would acknowledge them as their fathers, and 
" willingly obey their authority, which (says he) we find supported 
*^ hy the word of God."* Consequently, in his and their estimation, 
" episcopacy was an apostolic institution." Letter 15. Dr. Bowden 
has not given us the least hint in what part of Luther^s writings 
this declaration is to be found ;t and I shall certainly require to see 
it with my own eyes, and to trace its connexion, before it is admit- 
ted as an authentic testimony of that reformer's opinion. I make 
this demand with the more confidence, and with a deeper convic- 
tion of its justice, because, in turning over the works o( Luther, I 
find numerous passages, which speak, directly and unequivocally, 
an opposite language : passages which Dr. Boioden certainly could 
not have been acquainted with, or he would have been ashamed to 
pen the above cited paragraph. 

It were easy to fill several letters with quotations, strongly in 
point, from this illustrious man. The following, however, will 
suffice. 

In his treatise, De Ahroganda Missa Privata, contained in the 
second volume of his works,! remarking on Titus i. 5. he makes 

* Calderwood. 

f Really, considering the severity with which Dr. J?oM;(?m censures 
me for not being in all cases sufficiently attentive to my references, and 
his formal and solemn promises to be more " scholar like" himself, this 
omission occurs by far too frequently. 

+ My edition of Luther's works is in seven volumes, folio, printed at 
Wittemberg, 1546—1552. 



368 LETTER VI. 

the following explicit declaration. <^ Here, if we believe that the 
" Spirit of Christ spake and directed by Paul, we must acknow- 
" ledge that it is a divine appointment, that in every city there be 
" a plurality/ of bishops, or at least one. It is manifest also, that, 
" by the same divine authority, he m^ikes presbyters and bishops 
" to be 07ie and the same thing; for he says that presbyters are to 
*^ be ordained in every city, if any can be found who are blarae- 
" less, because a bishop ought to be blameless." 

In his treatise Adversus Falso Nominatum Ordinem Episcopo- 
rum,* Oper. Tom, Ibid. p. 342. remarking on the same passage 
of scripture, he speaks as follows — " Faul writes to Titus that he 
" should ordain elders in every city. Here, I think, no one can 
" deny that the apostle represents bishop and elder as signifying 
" the same thing. Since he commands Titus to ordain elders in 
" every city ; and because a bishop ought to be blameless, he calls 
" an elder by the same title. It is, therefore, plain what Paul 
" means by the term bishop, viz. a man eminently good and up- 
" right, of proper age, who hath a virtuous wife, and children in 
" subjection in the fear of God. He wills such an one to preside 
" over the congregation, in the ministry of the word, and the ad- 
" ministration of the sacraments. Is there any one who attends 
" to these words of the apostle, together with those which precede 
" and follow, so hardened as to deny this sense of them, or to per- 
" vert them to another meaning?" 

In the same work, p. 344, 345, he thus speaks— " But let us 
" hear Paul concerning this divine ordination. For Luke in the 
" 20th chapter of the Acts of the apostles, writes concerning 
" him in this manner. From Miletus, having sent messengers to 
" Ephesus, he collected the elders of the church, to whom, when 
*" thei/ had come to him, he thus said — Take heed to yourselves 
" and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you 
" Overseers, Sfc, But what new thing is this ? Is Paul insane ? 
" Ephesus was but a single city, arid yet Paul openly calls all the 

* Whoever will take the trouble to look into this treatise, which is ex- 
pressly written ag-alnst bishops, as a seperate and pre-eminent order, will 
find Luther decidedly maintaining- that a Scriptural bishop was nothing 
more than a pastor of a single congregation 5 and strongly inveighing 
against the doctrine that bishops are an order above pastors, as a Popish 
error. 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 369 

" presbyters or elders, by the common style o( bishops. But per- 
" haps Paul had never read the legends, the miserably patched up 
*' fables, and the sacred decretals o( {he papists ; for how otherwise 
" would he have dared to place a plurality of bishops over one 
" city, and to denominate all the presbyters of that one city, 
" bishops ; when they were not all prelates, nor supported a train 
** of dependents, and pack horses, but were poor and humble men. 
*' But, to be serious, you see plainly, that the Apostle Paul calls 
" those alone bishops who preach the Gospel to the people, and 
" administer the sacraments, as, in our times, parish ministers and 
" preachers are wont to* do. These, therefore, though they 
" preach the Gospel in small villages and hamlets, yet, as faithful 
" ministers of the word, I believe, beyond all doubt, possess, of 
" right, the title and name of bishop." 

A litde after, commenting on Philip, i. 1. he says—" Behold 
** Paul, speaking of Philippi, which was a single city, salutes all 
" the believers, together with the bishops. These were, beyond 
" all doubt, the presbyters, whom he had been wont to appoint in 
"every city. .This now is the third instance in the writings of 
" Paul, in which we see what God and the Holy Spirit hath ap- 
" pointed, viz. that those alone, truly and of right, are to be called 
" bishops who have the care of a flock in the ministry of the word, 
" the care of the poor, and the administration of the sacraments, 
" as is the case with parish ministers in our age." 

In the same work, p. 346, commenting on 1 Peter v. 1. he says 
— " Here you see that Peter, in the same manner as Paul 
" had done, uses the terms presbyter and bishop to signify the 
" same thing. He represents those as bishops who teach the peo- 
" pie, and preach the word of God ; and he makes them all of 
" equal power, and forbids them to conduct themselves as if they 
" were lords, or to indulge a spirit of domination over their flocks. 
" He calls himself a fellow presbyter, plainly teaching, by this 
" expression, that all parish ministers, and bishops of cities, were 
" of equal authority among themselves; that in what pertained to 
" the office of bishop, no one could claim any superiority over ano- 
" iher ; and that he was their fellow presbyter, having no more 
" power in his own city than others had in theirs, or than every 
" one of them had in his own congregation." 

In his Commentary on 1 Peter v. 1. Oper. Tom. v. p. 481. he 
3 A 



870 LETTER VI. 

thus speaks — " The word presbyter signifies an elder. It has the 
" same meaning as the term senators^ that is, men who on account 
" of their age, prudence, and experience, bear sway in society. — 
*^ In the same manner Christ calls his ministers, and his senate, 
<* whose duty it is to administer spiritual government, to preach 
'^ the word, and to watch over the church, he calls them elders. 
" Wherefore let it not surprise you, if this name is now very dif- 
" ferenlly applied; for of those who are at present called by this 
** name, the scriptures say nothing. Therefore banish the present 
*^ order of things from your eyes, and you will be able to conceive 
*^ of the fact as it was. When Peter^ of either of the other apos- 
" ties, came to any city where there were Christians, out of the 
" number he chose one or more aged men, of blameless lives, who 
'* had wives and children, and were well acquain ted with the scrip- 
*' tures, to be set over the rest. These were coWe d preshi/ters, that 
" is elders, whom both Peter and Paul also style bishops, that 
" we may know that bishops and presbyters were the same,'' 

Again, in his commentary on the second verse of the same chap- 
ter, he says, " I have often said, that if we would wish to have 
" the Christian commonwealth rightly established, it is necessary 
*' that there be, in every city, three or four bishops, who should 
" superintend the church, and, if any thing should be at any time 
" delinquent or lost, restore it." 

But this is not all. Liiiher declared his principles on this sub- 
ject by his practice, as well as by his tvritings. He was ordained 
a presbyter in the Romish church, in the year 1507, in the 24th 
year of his age.* As a presbyter, he considered himself as autho- 
rized to ordain others to the gospel ministry; and accordingly, 
soon after assuming the character of a reformer, he actually did or- 
dain.t Nay, he went a step further. Though a firm believer in 
the doctrine of the primitive parity of ministers, he seems to have 
considered it as not unlawful to have diocesan bishops or supe?'in- 
tendents in the church, when either the form of the civil govern- 

* Vid. Gerhard, De Ministerio, p. 147, 148. The same fact is also at- 
tested hy Zanchius. In IV. Pnscep.jy. 774. Gerhard, who lived not long 
after Luther, expressly asserts that he was ordained a presbyter, with the 
imposition of hands in the year above mentioned. 

t Melchior Marriy 129. 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 371 

ment, or the habits or wishes of the people rendered it desirable ; 
always, however, placing their appointment on the ground o{ human 
expediency alone. Accordingly, in the year 1542, when an episco- 
pal seat within the electorate of Saxony became vacant, Luihe?', at 
the request of the elector, though himself nothing more than a pres- 
byter, consecrated ^wst/or^ bishop of that diocese.* But \( Luther 
had believed in " the apostolic mslitution of diocesan episcopacy," 
as Dr. Bo?vdente\]s us he did, could he have acted thus ? It is not 
possible. It would have been a grossness of inconsistency and 
dishonesty with which that holy reformer was never charged. 

Nor did Luther abandon either his principles or his practice, on 
this subject, to his last hour. This appears from the following 
testimony of his biographer, concerning what occurred a few days 
before his death. " From the 29th day of January till the I7th 
" day of February, he was continually occupied about the matteis 
" of concord and agreement of the aforesaid noble princes, bringing 
" it unto a most godly conclusion. And besides his great labour 
" in so necessary a cause, he preached in the mean time, four 
*' worthy sermons, and two times communicated with the Chris- 
" tian church there, in the holy supper of the Lord; and in the 
" latter communion, which was on Sunday, he ordained two mi- 
^' nisters of the word of God, after the apostles'' manner J'i This 
great reformer, then, in the solemn anticipation of death, and when 
he expected, in a iaw days, to appear before his eternal Judge, still 
claimed and exercised the right of ordaining ministers, as he had 
done for near thirty years ; and what is more, his biographers, who 
were eminent divines of the Lz^^7iera?« denomination, and Luther's 
most intimate friends, declare, that, in their judgment, as well as 
that of their illustrious chief, ordination by ?i presbyter was in con- 
formity with " the apostles' manner." 

Nor did Luther stand alone, among the churches of his denomi- 
nation, in maintaining the primitive parity of Gospel ministers. 
This is evident from the confessions, and other ecclesiastical 

• Meldioir Adam, 150. 

f ** The true history of the Christian departing of the Rev. Dr. Martin 
** Luther ,• collected by Justus Jonas, Michael Celius, and Joannes 
** Aurifaber, which were present thereat'' 



372 LETTER VI. 

documents, which were early set forth, and which have been ever 
since received by those churches. 

Among the standards of the Lutheran churches, the Augustan 
Confession holds the first rank. It was drawn up by Melancthon, 
approved by Luther, and formally presented to the Emperor 
Charles V., by those reformers, and their adherents, in the year 
1530, as a summary of the doctrines received by them. In this 
celebrated Confession there is a reference to a charge brought 
against the Lutherans by the papists, that they had abolished the 
order of 62sAo/>s,* as a superior grade of clergy. The fact is not 
denied, but defended ; and that on the ground that it was neces- 
sary to obey God rather than man ; and to be guided by scripture 
rather than human traditions. It is observable, also, that in this 
Confession, the preaching of the gospel, and the administration of 
the sacraments, are represented as the highest functions of the 
ministry, and the right to perform these as including all other minis- 
terial power.* 

The work next in authority, as a compend of Lutheran doctrine, 
is the famous Defence of the Augustan Confession, composed by 
Melancthon, in the year 1530; presented to the Emperor at 
Augsburg, the same year; acknowledged as the creed of the pro- 
testants there assembled ; published in 1531, and solemnly adopt- 
ed as one of the standards of the Lutheran church, by her princi- 
pal civil and ecclesiastical guides of that day. — In the 7th chapter 
of this defence, the following passage is found. Speaking of 
episcopacy, they say, " Concerning this point, we have often 
" declared, in the present convention, that we earnestly desire to 
" retain the ecclesiastical polity, and those grades which are 
" established in the church, although brought in hy human autho- 
*^ rity. For we know that this form of ecclesiastical discipline, as 
" it is described in the ancient canons, was introduced by the 
" fathers of the church with good and useful counsel." — Here is one 
of the strongest testimonies imaginable in favour of the doctrine of 
primitive parity. In a Confession of Faith, drawn up and sub- 
scribed by some of the most eminently pious and learned divines 
that ever lived, while they express a strong predilection in favour 
of that episcopal regimen which they found in the church, and 

• See the article on Ecclesiastical power throughout. 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 373 

which had been long established ; they still declare, that they con- 
sider it as " brought in by human authority" — and as resting on 
no other ground than " the good and useful counsel of their 
fathers." 

The work next in authority in the Lutheran churches, is the 
famous collection of articles drawn up and adopted at Smalkald, 
in 1537. They were composed by Luther, subscribed by hira, 
and also by Melancthon, Jonas, Bugenhagius, Myconius, and 
many other illustrious Lutheran divines ; and solemnly acknow- 
ledged, at a general meeting of protestants, in the city whose name 
they bear, as containing a summary of their theological and eccle- 
siastical principles. In those articles, the following declarations 
are found. " It is clear, even from the confession of our adver- 
" saries, that this power, (to wit of preaching, dispensing the sacra- 
" ments, excommunication, and absolution,) is common to all that 
" are set over the churches, whether they be called pastors, pres- 
" byters, or bishops. Wherefore Jerome plainly affirms, that there is 
" no difference between a bishop and di presbyter ; but that every 
** pastor is a bishop. Here Jerome teaches that the distinction of 
** degrees between a bishop, and a presbyter or pastor, was only 
" appointed by human authority, and the thing itself imports no 
" less ; for on both bishop and presbyter is laid the same duty, and 
" the same charge. Only ordination m after times made the 
" difference between bishop and pastor. By divine right there is 
" no difference between them."* 

The last public document of the Lutheran church, which I shall 
quote, as supporting our doctrine, is a syllabus of controverted 
points, digested out of the received Creeds and Confessions of that 
church, and published with those Creeds and Confessions by au- 
thority. In chapter 18. §4. of this work, we find the following 
explicit declaration. " Ordination to the work of the ministry is 
" necessary in a church at liberty ; but this act does not belong to 
'< bishops alone, nor can it with propriety be called a sacrament. 
" We hold this in opposition to the papists, and also to certain 
" English Episcopalians, as Carleton, Hall, and Bilson, who dis- 

* drticuli Smalcaldici Christians Dodrinx — Scripii a D. Martino 
Luthero, Anno 1537 — Art. De Poiestate et Jurisdidione Episcoporum,. 



374 LETTER VI. 

" tinguish between preshyters and bisJiops as to the point of ordi- 
" nation."*^ 



But we may go further. Almost all the public Confessions 
which were drawn up and adopted at the sera of the reformation, 
contain the same^doctrine, and speak the same language. Mr. Hoio 
indeed declares, that " the universal language at the time of the 
*' reformation," was in favour of the apostolical institution of pre- 
lacy, and offering no other plea but that of necessity for establish- 
ing a different system of ecclesiastical order. Dr. Botvden makes, 
in substance, the same assertion. What these gentlemen will think 
of themselves, and of their representation, after perusing the follow- 
ing extracts, is not for me to decide. 

In the Confession of Saxony, dmwn up in 1551, hy Melancthon, 
and subscribed by all the Saxon churches, the following passages 
are found. Art. 11. " We do also retain in our churches the 
"public rite of ordination, whereby the ministry of the gospel is 
" commended to those that are truly chosen, whose manners and 
" doctrine we do first thoroughly examine. These things pertain 
" to the ministry, — to teach the gospel; to administer the sacra- 
" ments; to give absolution lo them that ask it, and do not per- 
" severe in manifest offences ; to ordain ministers of the gospel, 
" being rightly called and examined ; to exercise the judgment of 
" the church after a lawful manner, upon those who are guilty of 
"manifest grimes in manners or in doctrine; and to pronounce 
^' the sentence cf excommunication against them that are stubborn, 
" and again to absolve and pardon them that do repent. That 
" these things may be done orderly, there be also consistories flp- 
" pointed in our churches. "^f 

The Confession of Wirtemberg, drawn up in 1552, by order of 
the duke of Wirtemberg^ and presented by his ambassadors to the 
council o( Trent, as a specimen of protestant doctrine, contains the 
following declarations. Art. 20. " Christ, in his church, hath 
" instituted ministers who should preach his gospel, and adminis- 
" ter the sacraments. Neither is it to be permitted to every one to 

* .Appendix ad Libros Ecclesias Lutheranx SymboUcos, &c. p. 195. 
f Harmony of Confessions. Sect 10. 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 375 

" usurp a public ministry in the church, without a lawful calling. 
" Paul writelh that a bisJiop ought to be apt to teach ; and Jerome 
" teacheth that a priest and a bishop are all one. Therefore it is 
" evident, that except a priest be ordained .in the church to the 
" ministry of teaching, he cannot rightly take unto him neither the 
" name of a priest, nor the name of a bishop."* 

The French Confession^ formed in 1559, and subscribed by all 
the pastors of the protestant churches in that kingdom, contains 
the following explicit declarations. Art. 29. " We believe that this 
" true church ought to be governed by that regiment or discipline, 
" which our Lord Jesus Christ hath established, to wit, so that 
" there be in it pastors, elders, and deacons, that the purity of 
'* doctrine may be letained, vices suppressed, the yoor, and others 
" that be in misery, according to their necessity, may be provided 
" for ; and that there may be holy meetings, for the edifying both 
" of small and great." Art. 30. " We believe that all true pas- 
" tors, in what place soever they be placed, have the same and 
" equal authority given unto them, under Jesus Christ, the only 
" head, and the chief and alone universal bishop ; and that, there- 
" fore, it is not lawful for any church to challenge unto itself do- 
" minion or sovereignty over any other church."t 

The Belgic Confession, formed in 1566, contains the following 
explicit and decisive articles. Art. 30. *' We believe, that this 
" church ought to be ruled and governed by that spiritual regiment, 
" which God himself hath delivered in his word, so that there be 
" placed in \t pastors and ministers, purely to preach, and rightly 
" to administer the holy sacraments — That there be also in it Sc' 
" niors (or elders) and deacons, of whom the senate of the church 
" might consist, that, by these means, true religion might be pre- 
" served, and sincere doctrine in every place retained and spread 
^' abroad ; that vicious and wicked men might, after a spiritual 
" manner, be rebuked, amended, and as it were by the bridle of 
" discipline kept within their compass j that the poor in like man- 
" ner, and those that be afflicted, may be relieved, either w^ith aid 
" or comfort, according to the several necessities of every one. 
" For then shall all things in the church be done in due and con- 

* Harm, of Confessions, Sect. 11. 
t Ibid. Sect. 11. 



376 • LETTER VI. 

" venient order, when faithful and godly men are chosen to hate 
" the government of the same, even as St. Paul hath prescribed in 
« 1 Timothy 3, and in Titus 1." Art. 31. "We believe that 
<* the ministers, elders, and deacons, ought to be called to those 
*' their functions, and by the lawful election of the church to be ad- 
" vanced into those rooms, earnest prayer being made unto God, 
•* and after the order and manner which is set down unto us in the 
" word of God. This especially every one ought to take diligent 
" heed of, that he do not by unlawful means thrust himself into 
" those offices. For every one must wait until he be called of God 
" himself, that he may have a certain testimony of his vocation, 
"and may know that it is from the Lord. Yet in what place of 
" the world soever the ministers of the word of God do keep, they 
" have all of them the same and equal power and authority ; being 
" all of them equally the ministers of Christ, the only universal Bi- 
" shop and Head of the Church."* 

The second Helvetic Confession was drawn up by the pastors 
of Zurich, in the year 1566, and subscribed not only by themselves, 
but also by the churches of Geneva, Hungary, and Scotland. In 
the eighteenth chapter of that confession, which is entitled. Of the 
ministers of the church, their institution and offices, are found 
the following declarations — " The apostles of Christ do term all 
" those which believe in Christ, ^nes/s, but not in regard of their 
" ministry, but because all the faithful, being made Icings and 
" priests by Christ, may offer up spiritual sacrifices unto God. 
" The ministry, then, and priesthood are things far different one 
" from the other. For priesthood, as we said even now, is common 
" to all Christians, so is not the ministry. And we have not taken 
" away the ministry from the church, because we have thrust the 
" Popish priesthood out of the church of Christ. For surely in 
" the New Covenant of Christ, there is no longer any such 
" priesthood as was in the ancient church of the Jews, which 
" had an external anointing, holy garments, and very many cere- 
" monies tohich were figures and types of Christy who by his 
" coming, fulfilled and abolished them. And he himself remaineth 
" the only priest for ever ; and we do not communicate the name 
" of priest to any of the ministers, lest we should detract any thing 

* Harmony of Confessions, Sect U. 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 377 

" from Christ. Now the power that is given to the ministers of 
" the church is the same and alike in all : and, in the beginning, 
" the bisJiojJS or elders, did, with a common consent and labour, 
" govern the church. No man lifted up himself above another 5 
" none usurped greater authority or power over his fellow bishops ; 
« for they remembered the words of the Lord, He ichich icill he 
" the chief est among you let him he your servant. They kept in 
" themselves by humility, and did mutually aid one another in the 
" government and preservation of the church. Notwithstanding 
" for orders' sake, some one of the ministers called the assembly 
" together, propounded unto the assembly the matters to be con- 
" suited of, gathered together the voices or sentences of the rest, 
" and, to be brief, as much as lay in him, provided that there might 
" arise no confusion. So did Saint Feter, as we read in the 
" Acts; who yet, for all that, was neither above the rest, nor had 
" greater authority than the rest. Very true, therefore, is that 
" saying of Cyprian the martyr, in his book De Simpl. Cler. — 
" The same doubtless loere the rest of the apostles that Peter waSy 
" having an equal felloiaship with him hoth in honour and power ; 
" hut the heginning thereof proceedeth from unity , to signify 
*' unto us that there is but one church.— Sd\nt Jerome, upon the 
" epistle of Paul to Titus, hath a saying not much unlike this — 
" Before that by the instinct of the devil there was partaking in 
" religion, the churches were governed by the common advice 
" of the presbyters ; but after that every one thought, that those 
" whom he baptized were his own, and not Christ's, it was decreed 
" that one of the presbyters shoidd be chosen and set over the 
" rest, who should have the care of the whole church laid upon 
^^ him, and by whose means all schism should be removed. Yet 
" Jerome doth not avouch this as an order set down of God : for 
" straightway after, he addeth — Even as, saith he, the presbyters 
" knew by the continiial custom of the church that they were sub 
^'ject to him that is set over them — so the bishops must know 
" that they are above the presbyters, rather by custom, than by 
" the prescript rule of God's truth ; afid they should have the 
^'government of the church in common with them. Thus far 
" Jerome. Now, therefore, no man can forbid by any right, that 
" we may return to the old appointment of God, and rather receive 
" that, than the custom devised by men. — Furtliermore, no man 
3 B 



378 LETTER VI. 

" ought to usurp the honour of the ecclesiastical ministry, that is 
" to say, greedily to pluck it to him by bribes, or any evil shifts, 
" or of his own accord. But let the ministers of the church be 
" called and chosen by a lawful and ecclesiastical election and 
" vocation. — And those which are chosen, let them be ordained 
" of the elders f with public prayer^ and laying on of hands. We 
" do condemn all those which run of their own accord, being nei- 
" ther chosen, sent, nor ordained."* 

The Confession of Bohemia, drawn up about 1573, in chapter 
9th, contains the following passage — ^' Ministers ought not of their 
" own accord to press forward in that calling ; but ought, accord- 
" ing to the example of the Lord and the apostles, to be lawfully 
" appointed and ordained thereunto. And again, these ought to 
" be proved and tried by examination, and so afterwards, prayers 
" and fastings being made, they may be confirmed or approved of 
" the elders by laying on of hands.'^ —Chapter 14. " The power 
*^ of the keys is committed to the church of Christ, and to the minis- 
" ters thereof unto the end of the world ; that they should not 
" only, by preaching, publish the holy Gospel, although they 
" should do this especially, that is, should show forth that word of 
" true comfort, and the joyful message of peace, and new tidings 
" of that favour which God offereth ; but also that, to the believing 
" and unbelieving, they should publicly or privately denounce or 
" make known, to them his favour, to these his wrath, and that to 
<^ ?ill in general, or to every one in particular, that they may wisely 
" receive some into the house of God, to the communion of saints, 
" and drive some out from thence, and may so, through the per- 
** formance of their ministry, hold in their hand the sceptre of 
" Christ his kingdom, and use the same to the government of 
'^ Christ his sheep. And all these things are done by the faith- 
" ful shepherds of souls in the Lord's stead, not doing this of thera- 
" selves, but upon Christ his commandment ; not by their own 
" and proper virtue, but by Christ's, and by the efficacy of his 
" word and sacraments, as those that are stewards and dispensers 
" of the mysteries of God, and ministers only. In the administra- 
" tion of which things they may use some seemly and indifferent 
" ceremonies, that is, which are no way necessary, such as laying 

* Harmony of ConfessionSf Sect. 11. 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 379 

" on hands, or reaching out the right hand ; on else they may omit 
<^ them. — This power of his sceptre and spirit hath the Lord 
" granted and delivered to the holy apostles, and in them to all 
" ministers of churches lawfully ordained, that they might exercise 
" in his stead : and he granted it to them by these words, As the 
" Father hath sent me, so do I cend you also. By this we may 
" understand that these keys, or this divine function of the Lord's, 
" is committed and granted to those that have the charge of souls, 
" and to each several ecclesiastical society,* whether small or great. 
" Moreover, every Christian so often as he needeth these keys of 
" the Lord, ought to require them particularly for himself of the 
" pastors of souls of that church or fellowship, of which himself is 
" a part, and to which he belongeih ; and that he use them with full 
" confidence, no otherwise than if he had received them of Christ 
" himself, seeing that Christ hath delivered them unto the pastors. 
" This is also taught and handled, that the priests ought not to use 
" these keys of the Lord, otherwise than according to the meaning 
" and will of Christ expressed in his word."t 

From public Confessions, drawn up by the reformers, let us 
descend to individual opinions expressed by those illustrious wit- 
nesses for the truth, in different countries. Of these the following 
specimen will be suflGicient.' 

Ursinus, a learned German divine, contemporary with Luther 
and Melancthon, speaks the same language. " Ministers," says 
he, " are either immediately called of God or mediately through 
" the instrumentality of the church. Of the former class, were 
" prophets and apostles. Of the latter class there are five kinds, 
" viz. Evangelists, bishops or pastors, teachers, ruling elders, and 
" deacons. Evangelists are ministers appointed to go forth and 
" preach the Gospel to a number of churches. Bishops are minis- 
" ters ordained to preach the word of God, and administer the 
" sacraments, in particular churches. Teachers are ministers ap- 
" pointed merely to fulfil the function of teaching in particular 
" churches. Ruling elders are ministers elected by the voice of 

* This is explained by a note on the article in the following words — 
" That is to Presbyteries or Consistories, which stand of pastors and 
" elders; and unto whom properly the dispensing and ordering of the 
** keys and ecclesiastical censures do belong." 

f Harmony of Confessions^ Sect. 11. 



380 LETTER VI. 

" the church, to assist in conducting discipline ^ and to order a 
** variety of necessary matters in the church. Deacons are minis- 
" ters elected by the church, to take care of the poor, d^uiX to dis- 
" tribute alms * 

The very learned Musculus, also of Germany, a reformer con- 
temporary with Lulhcr, and who embraced his principles, having 
proved from Acts xx. Philip, i. 1. Titus i. 5. and 1 Peter v, 1. 
that, in the apostles' times a hiaJiop and presbyter were all one, 
adds as follows : " But after the apostles' times, when, amongst 
" the elders of the church, (as Jerome saith,) schisms arose, and, 
" as I verily think; they began to strive for the pre-eminence by 
" little and little, they began to choose one out of the number of the 
" elders, who was placed above the rest, in a higher degree, and 
" called bishop. But whether that device of man profited the 
" church or no, those who lived in succeeding times could better 
"judge, than when it first began, l^ Jerome had seen as much as 
" those who came after him, he would, no doubt, have concluded 
" that this was never brought in to take away schism, but was a 
^^ project of the devil to waste and destroy i\\& primitive ministry, 
" appointed for feeding the Lord's flock." Again, he declares, 
" Whence it evidently appears that, in the times of the apostles, 
" elders, pastors, and bishops were owe and the same in God's 
" church." — " It is beyond all dispute, that the first and apostolic 
*^ church, was, by the apostles, so constituted, that the elders of the 
" church did exercise a common episcopal care over the Lord's 
" flock, and enjoyed the same function of teaching and governing, 
<^ and were therein subject to no head or president."! 

Zsegedin, an eminent Lutheran d'lxine of Hungary , contempora- 
ry with Liuther and Calvin, delivers, in substance, the same doc- 
trine. The following quotations are decisive. " May one pastor 
" preside over other pastors? The practice, indeed, hath obtained 
" that presbyters should preside, each one in his own college, and 
" that this person alone should be called bishop. This, however, 
" arose from human custom, and is by no means supported by the 
" authority of scripture. And from perverting the signification 
" of a word this evil hath arisen, that, as if all presbyters were not 

* Ursin. Corpus. Bodrinas, Par. III. p. 721. 
f Loci Communes de Offic. Minist. p. 360—362. 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 381 

" colleagues^ and called to the same function, one, under the pre- 
" text of a new title, arrogated to himself a dominion over others."* 
Again, " Hence learn that all pastors are equal both in their 
" vocation and function ; and that there is no prelatical tyranny 
" constituted. It is necessary, indeed, that, among brethren, there 
" should be some one to convene the college, to state the business, 
" and, when it is necessary, to write and speak in the name of the 
" college. But this person, to avoid the odium of prelatical ty- 
" ranny, may be called superintendent. The power of superinten- 
" dents ought to be temporary and definite, not perpetuaVi 
Again, " Is the title of 6/s/iop common to all ministers of the word ? 
" Yes, certainly. For Paul, in the first chapter of the epistle to 
" the Philippians, represents many bishops as belonging to one 
" church. The titles bishop, pastor, presbyter, are, therefore, 
" synonymous. Bishop is a term expressive of duty and care, not 
" of dignity.^" — Again, ^' The popish bishops are false bishops ; 
" not successors of the apostles, but of Balaam, cruel, heretical, 
" enemies of Christ, who esteem the episcopate on account of its 
^' introducing them to great riches. While Paid comprehends 
" under the name of bishop, all pastors, the papists will have it 
" that none is to be held as a bishop but the one who is chosen by 
" the college to preside over his brethren. "J 

The learned Junius, an eminent Dutch professor of divinity, who 
lived at the commencement of the reformation in Holland, and 
who was, of course, nearly contemporary with Luther,'^ wrote very 
fully and explicitly in support of Presbyterian principles. In his 
work entitled Ecclesiastici, he decidedly, and with great learning, 
maintains, that pastors, ruling elders, and deacons, are the only 
three scriptural orders of church officers ; that pastors, or ministers 
of the word and sacraments, are the highest order, and, of course, 
are invested with the power of ordaining, that the second class 
are men of distinguished piety and prudence, chosen from among 

* Loci Communes, p. 197. Fol. Quint. Basil. 1608. 

f Loci Communes, p. 197 

:tlbid. 202. 

§ Of this illustrious reformer, it is related, that he preached in the 
city of w2niu>erjo at midnight, with no other light than that which was 
produced by the flames of burning martyrs. 



382 LETTER VI. 

the members of the church, to assist the pastor in the government 
ofthe church 5 and that the rfeacons are appointed to collect and 
distribute the alms of the church. He affirms that these three 
orders are set forth in scripture, and existed in the primitive church. 
He declares that a scriptural bishop was the pastor of a single 
congregation; and that giving this title, by way of eminence, to 
one ofthe pastors in a city or district, was a practice introduced 
after the time ofthe apostles, and is to be considered as a depar- 
ture from the primitive model.* 

The same writer in his Animadversions on cardinal Bellarmine, 
is still more pointed and positive against the claims of diocesan 
episcopacy, and in favour ofthe Presbyterian doctrine of parity.— 
It is really amusing to trace the popish cardinal through all his 
reasonings and cavils, and to observe what a remarkable coinci- 
dence there is between him and Dr. Boioden ; and it is no less wor- 
thy of notice that Junius^ though he wrote nearly two hundred and 
fifty years ago, and, of course, many years before the synod of 
Dorty argues as uniformly and strongly in favour of Presbyterian 
principles, as any champion of presbytery that ever appeared. I 
cannot forbear particularly to observe, that Bellarmine turns in 
every direction, and strains every nerve, to set aside the testimony 
oi Jerome; and for this purpose, in almost every instance, employs 
exactly the same arguments and the same subterfuges with Dr. 
Bowden : While Junius pronounces and proves his arguments to 
be futile, and his subterfuges unavailing, and the testimony of that 
celebrated father to be precisely what the friends of parity have 
ever considered it.t 

The learned Sadeel, a French protestant divine, contemporary 
with Calvin and Beza, has frequently been represented by episco- 
pal writers, as friendly to their claims, and even as acknowledging 
the apostolical institution of episcopacy. What the opinions of 
this reformer really were, will appear from the following quota- 
tions. In answer to a learned ^o/)iVt doctor, who, like some of 

* Ecclesiasiici, sive de Nat. et Administrat. Ecclesise, &c. Lib. ii. Cap. 
2, 3, 4. 

-j- Fr. Junii Animadversiones in Bellarm. controv. v. Lib. i. cap. 5, 6, 7. 
No intelligent reader will fail to observe how almost universally reform- 
ers, synods, confessions, and learned divines of every name interpret 
Jerome precisely as I have done. 



TESTIMONY OP THE REFORMERS. 383 

our zealous Episcopalians, warmly contended that the power of 
ordination was confined to diocesan bishops, he declares, " This 
" Sorhonne doctor objects, that our ministers are only presbyters, 
" and not bishops; and therefore could not ordain other ministers, 
" since only bishops have a right to ordain. That this opinion is 
''false, T shall immediately show. It is evident, from the word of 
" God, that bishop and presbyter are the same. This appears from 
" Titus 1. 5, from Actsxx. and from Philip, i. 1. But the doctor 
" will reply, that the names are indeed used interchangeably in the 
" passages above stated ; but that the offices themselves are care- 
" fully distinguished in scripture. But, I answer, when the pres- 
" byters are called bishops, the apostle is, in such places, treating 
" not of the names and titles only, but of the office and function it- 
" self. For when he exhorts the presbyters ofEphesus to the right 
" exercise of their office, he adds this reason, that the Holy Ghost 
'^ had constituted them bishops ; and, therefore, he says, not that 
" they were only called so ; but that they were, in very deed, con- 
" stituted such bishops. So that the answer touching the confusion 
" of names is quite overthrown. — But the Sorbonne doctor tells us 
" that Paul enjoins Timothy to lay hands suddenly owwowzfzw, and, 
"therefore, none but Timothy had the right of ordination. But 
" this conclusion is utterly without foundation 5 for Timothy is also 
" enjoined to reject fables, and to give attendance to reading, ex- 
" hortation, and doctrine, &c. Did Timothy, therefore, arrogatf 
" all these things to himself alone ? Did they not belong to pres- 
''byters, who, by Paul's testimony, laboured in the word and doc- 
" trine ? Timothy's episcopacy at Ephesus cannot be made good 
" by any testimony of Scripture." Again — " If we allow to pres- 
" byters the right to preach the gospel, to administer baptism, and 
" to celebrate the Lord's supper, upon what imaginable ground can 
" we deny them the right to ordain ? Therefore such as exclude 
" presbyters from the right to ordain, show themselves to be gross- 
" ly ignorant both of the nature of ordination, and of the pastoral 
" office." And in support of all this reasoning, and much more, 
which I am compelled to omit, he quotes the famous testimony of 
Jerome, and pronounces it to be conclusive. He quotes also Ire- 
ncBUSj Ambrose, and Augustine, as giving testimony which coin- 
cides with that of Jerome^ and adds, " I cite these, because the 



384 LETTER VI. 

" papists esteem the authority of the fathers, more than that of 
" plain declarations of scripture."* 

But, in addition to all this, there is testimony of a different kind. 
It not only appears, from the public confessions^ and individual 
declarations, which have been quoted, that the apostolical 
institution of ministerial parity was believed by the Lutheran 
as well as the Reformed churches ; but it is evident that they 
were considered by others as having avowed their belief in that 
doctrine. 

The famous cardinal Bellarmine certainly understood the pro- 
iesiants of his day generally to hold the equality of bishops and 
presbyters by divine right. " If," sailh he, " episcopacy be a 
" sacrament distinct from the presbyterate, it will be easy to prove 
" that a bishop is, both in order and jurisdiction, greater than a 
" presbyter, by divine right ; which now, all the heretics (the 
" protestants) DENY."t De Sacramento Ordinis, Cap. 5. And 
in his work, De Clericis, he makes a similar declaration in terms 
equally express. For having asserted that a bishop is superior to 
a presbyter, by divine right, both with respect to order and juris- 
diction, he ascribes the contrary doctrine to Aerius^ to Wickliffe, 
to the Lutherans, and the Calvinists. Cap. 14. 

Crakenthorp, a learned divine of the church of England, con- 
temporary with Bellarmine, speaking of Luther, and the other 
reformers on the continent of Europe, expresses himself in the 
following terms. " They have not, I know, bishops, distinct from 
^'presbyters, and superior to them ; but at the same time, they do 
" not teach, as Aerius did, that ministerial imparity is contrary to 
" the word of God. They do not condemn it. They hold that, 
" by the word of God, and divine right, either parity, or imparity 

* Oper. Theol. Tom. i. Tract. De Legitima Vocatione Pasiorum Ecck- 
ssce. p, 65—67. 

t jBe/Zarmzne was contemporary with archbishop Whitgift, It seems 
that, at that time, the cardinal knew of no protestants who held to the 
divine right of prelacy. It is evident, therefore, that this doctrine was 
then either wholly unknown in England^ or maintained hy so few, that 
they were not considered as worthy of being recog^ed as an exception. 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 385 

" is lawful, and that every church has authority or power to 
« admit either the one or the other as it thinks best."* 

On these documents I shall not trouble you with many remarks. 
They speak a language so uniform, decided, and conclusive, that it 
can neither be mistaken nor resisted. And they establish, be- 
yond the possibility of dispute, that all the leading reformers were 
firm believers in the primitive parity of ministers. That this was 
the opinion of Luther, Melancthon,i and all the principal divines 
of their communion, has been abundantly proved. That Calvin 
was uniformly of the same opinion, will be demonstrated in the next 
letter. That the Saxon, Helvetic, French, Belgic, and Bohemian 
Confessions, all declare in favour of this doctrine, as received and 
practised in the apostolic age, you have seen with your own eyes. 
And, finally, that Crcfwwier and his associates, who commenced the 
reformation in England, did also, at least at one period, concur in 
the same acknowledgment, has been placed beyond all reasonable 
doubt. 

After viewing this body of testimony, what must we think of Mr. 
HouPs repeated declarations, that " the reformers, universally 
" admitted the apostolic claims of the episcopal constitution ;" that 
" Luther and Melancthon acknowledged the obligation of episco- 
" pacy 5 excusing their departure from it on the ground of neces- 
" sity /" that " episcopacy was never ranked, by the reformers, 

* Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Cap. 42. Sect. 6. 

f It has been said that Melancthon, on a certain occasion, expressed a 
willingness to submit to the power of prelates, provided they would be- 
come patrons of the reformation. This is true. It is also true, that the 
same pious and amiable, but too accommodating, Melancthon, when he 
subscribed the famous Smalkald Articles, annexed to his subscription a 
declaration, (which is still to be seen,) that he was willing to allow the 
pope a superiority over all other bishops, for the sake of the peace of 
the church ; provided he would aid in reforming the church. And it is 
as true as either, that by these concessions, Melancthon gave great 
offence to the protestants of his own communion, and complains in one 
of his letters, of the resentment which they manifested against him on 
this account. See Melancthon' s epistles, near the beginning of the 
volume. Having mislaid the notes which I made, at the time of perusing 
the passage, I am not able, at present, to make a more particular 
reference. 

3 C 



386 LETTER VL 

" among the corruptions, or innovations of the papacy ;'' that 
" they aZ/f recognized it as an institution primitive and apostolic; 
" acknowledging without reserve, their obligation to conform it ?" 
And what must we think of Dr. Bowden^ (from whom better infor- 
mation and more caution might have been expected,) when he fully 
concurs with Dr. Hohart and Mr. How, in this language of bold 
and unqualified assertion ? How gentlemen who have any accurate 
knowledge of the rise and progress of the reformation ; or who 
have attended to the history and the contents of public confessions, 
could write thus, is, indeed, unaccountable ! I am lost in astonish- 
ment when I think of the fact ! 

It only remains that we notice, for a moment, the assertion of 
Dr. Botoden and Mr. How, that in the Lutheran churches of 
Sweden and Denmark, prelacy, both mfact and name, is received. 
If these gentlemen mean, that there are ministers in Sweden and 
De?i7warA;, who bearthe titles of fe/s/iop and archhisliop, their as- 
sertion is undoubtedly correct ; and this is no more than I explicit- 
ly stated in my former letters. But if they mean, that the Swedish 
and Danish churches believe in the divine right of prelacy ; that 
they consider episcopal ordination as necessary to constitute the 
Christian ministry 5 or that they do, in fact, always insist upon 
such ordination — they are unquestionably in a gross error; and 
have given their readers a most delusive view of the subject. 

With respect to Sweden, it is well known, that those who plant- 
ed the reformation, and ordained the first protestant ministers in 
that country, were mere presbyters. And although, from the in- 
fluence of habit, they chose to retain the names and some of the 
functions of bishops and archbishops ; yet it is equally certain, 
that the first persons who bore these titles, were set apart to their 
office by presbyters ; and, of course, received themselves, and were 
enabled to communicate to others, no other than Presbyterian 
ordination. As to the point of light in which this subject is regard- 
ed by the church of Sweden, I am happy iti being able to produce 
the testimony of the Rev. Dr. Collin, pastor of the Swedish church 
in Philadelphia, a gentleman whose acquaintance with the eccle- 
siastical system of his native country cannot be doubted; and 
whose character is a sufficient guarantee for the accuracy of his 
statements. He assures me, in a letter, written at my request, that 
all the Sioedish divines, and particularly those who themselves 



TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 387 

enjoy the episcopal dignity, consider episcopacy merely as a 
human regulation ; that this is the doctrine of all their standard 
books ; that accordingly, in the absence of those who are styled 
bishops, ordinations are performed by ordinary clergymen ; and 
that even bishops and archbishops, may be set apart to their office 
by presbyters. In support of these facts. Dr. Collin produces the 
most decisive testimony from Swedish writers of the highest autho- 
rity ; and declares, that there is but one opinion among them on 
the subject. He adds," The Danes agree with us in this matter. 
« Vandalin, Primarius Professor of Theology in Copenhagen, in 
" a much esteemed work published in the year 1727? has the fol- 
" lowing passage, p. 354. An jure divino Episcopi a Fresby- 
" teris distincti sunt ? Negatur, contra Pontijicios et quosdam 
" Anglos.^' i. e. " Are bishops and presbyters distinct orders 
by divine right ? We deny it; in opposition to ihe papists, and to 
certain persons of the church of Ew^Zawd" He then goes on to 
establish his opinion by reference to a number of passages of 
scripture, which are precisely those which Presbyterians usually 
quote. 

The result of all the testimony exhibited in the present Letter, is 
this. That the Waldenses, the Bohemian Brethren, and all the 
great individual witnesses for the truth, prior to the time oi Luther, 
were, almost without exception, decidedly anti-prelatical in their 
sentiments. That at the period of the reformation, the Presbyterian 
form of church government was established in all the reformed 
churches in Germany, Scotland, France, Geneva, and Holland; 
and its establishment in all these countries, accompanied with 
public and solemn declarations that they considered this as having 
been the apostolic and primitive form. And, that, although in the 
Lutheran churches of Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and other 
parts of Europe, some ministers were invested with pre-eminent 
powers, under different titles ; yet that they all, with one voice, 
declared, that in the apostolic church, ministerial parity prevailed j 
and acknowledged, that the order of Bishops was brought in by 
human authority, and was a regulation oi expediency alone. Such 
was the doctrine maintained by those churches, at that interesting 
period ; and the same doctrine has been maintained by them uni- 
formly to the present hour. It follows, then, agreeably to my 
declaration in a former letter, that the church of England stands 



388 LETTER VI. 

absolutely alone, in the whole protestant world, in asserting the 
divine institution of prelacy (if indeed, she, as a church, c?oes assert 
it, which many of her own most respectable sons have denied) ; 
that every other protestant church on earth has formally disclaimed 
this doctrine, and pronounced the distinction between bishops and 
Presbyters to be a mere human invention ; and, consequently, 
that the doctrine of the jure divino prelatists, is Sb far from being 
the general doctrine of the reformed churches, that it never has 
been, and is not now, received, by more than a very small portion — 
a mere handful of the Protestant world. 

I repeat once more — the Bible is the statute book of the church 
of Christ ; and by this book alone, must the question before us be 
finally decided. But, so far as human opinion, fortified by all 
the considerations of talents, learning and piety, is of any value, 
the doctrine of Presbyterian parity stands on the most elevated and 
triumphant ground. 



( 389 ) 



LETTER VII. 



THE TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 



CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

It has fallen to the lot of few individuals to be more mistaken 
and misrepresented than the venerable Calvin, His great talents, 
his profound learning, his fervent piety, his stupendous labours, 
his astonishing self-denial, and his sublime disinterestedness, have 
all been insufficient to protect him from the grossest abuse. His 
personal character, his theological opinions, and the form of eccle- 
siastical government which he preferred, have each, in turn, been 
the objects of accusation and slander. Had these unfair statements 
been either always the same, or consistent with themselves, it would 
not havQ been wonderful to find them making some impression on 
persons who had no access to sources of correct information. But 
when scarecly any two of these statements can be reconciled with 
each other ; and when the most of them are expressly contradicted by 
authentic documents, it is truly a matter of wonder that they should 
be favourably received by any who have the least claim to the 
character of learning or impartiality. This wonder, however, exists. 
We can hardly open a controversial work from the pen of any 
of our episcopal brethren, without finding more or less obloquy 
directed against the illustrious Reformer of Geneva. 

Dr. Bowden and Mr. How have indulged themselves in this ob- 
loquy in a manner, and to an extent, which appears to me to 
demand animadversion. And as they lay so much stress on the 
supposed concessions of Calvin in favour of episcopacy j and, at 



390 LETTER VII. 

the same time, appear to enter with such hearty good will into 
every attempt, by whomsoever made, to load his character with 
reproach, I have resolved to devote the whole of the present letter 
to a view of the writings, the opinions, and the general character of 
that celebrated man. 

Had these gentlemen been contented with exhibiting Calvin^ as 
a man of a " fierce," " turbulent," and " intolerant spirit ;" had 
they spoken only of his " characteristic violence," of his " playing 
the tyrant," and of his malignant disposition to crush all who 
opposed him ; to such charges I should have thought it unneces- 
sary to reply. To refute them, completely and triumphantly, as 
applicable in any peculiar or pre-eminent degree to that apostolic 
man, nothing more is requisite than a tolerable acquaintance with 
the history of his life and time. When so many of the greatest 
and best prelates that ever adorned the church of England; men 
really learned, and breathing in an extraordinary degree the spirit 
of the Gospel, have delighted to dwell on the praises of Calvin; 
when they have almost exhausted every epithet of respect in eulo- 
gizing his talents, his learning, his piety, his judgment, and the 
usefulness of his labours; — his memory surely needs no defence 
against the attacks of Dr. Bowden and Mr. How. But when these 
gentlemen bring forward allegations and extracts which are calcu- 
lated to mislead even their intelligent readers, and to set the decla- 
rations and the practice of the pious reformer at variance ; I deem 
it my duty to make a few remarks, and to state a few facts, in vin- 
dication of what I consider as the cause of primitive (ruth and 
order. 

Dr. Bowden and Mr. How represent Preshyterianism as having 
originated with Calvin. Now it happens that Pi\esbyterianism, 
(to say nothing of its apostolic origin,) was introduced into Geneva, 
before Calvin ever saw that city, when he was about nineteen 
years of age, and while he was yet in the communion of the church 
of Rome. The following quotation from Dr. Heylin, a high-toned 
Episcopalian, and a favourite authority of Dr. Bowden, will be 
considered by him as decisive. " In this condition it (^Geneva) 
<* continued till the year 1528, when those of Berne, after a public 
" disputation held, had made an alteration in religion, defacing 
" images, and innovating all things in the church on the Zuinglian 
^' principles. Viretus and Farellus, two men exceeding studious 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 391 

" of the Reformation, had gained some footing in Geneva, about 
" that time, and laboured with the bishop to admit of such altera- 
'^ tions, as had been newly made in Berne, But when they saw no 
" hopes of prevailing with him, they practised on the lower part 
" of the people, with whom they had gotten most esteem, and 
" travelled so effectually with them in it, that the bishop and his 
" clergy, in a popular tumult, are expelled the town, never to be 
" restored to their former power. After which they proceeded to 
" reform the church, defacing images, and following in all points 
" the example of Berne, as by Viretus and Farellus they had been 
" instructed ; whose doings in the same, were afterwards counte- 
" nanced and approved by Calvin, as himself confesseth."* 

The declaration of Calvin to which Heylin refers, is probably 
that which he makes in his famous letter to Cardinal Sadolet. In 
the beginning of that letter, he expressly informs the Cardinal, that 
" the religious system of Geneva had been instituted, and its eccle- 
" siastical government reformed, before he was called thither. But 
" that what had been done by Farel and Viret, he heartily ap- 
" proved, and strove, by all the means in his power, to preserve 
" and establish. 

Beza also informs us, and after him, Melchior Adam, and others, 
that in the year 1536, when Calvin stopped at Geneva,on his way 
to Basil, without having the remotest thought of settling at the for- 
mer place, Farel and Viret, then pastors of Geneva, earnestly 
importuned him to remain in that city, and to become their asso- 
ciate in the ministry; that he slill, however, declined; that it was 
not until Farel ventured in the name of the Omnipotent God, to 
to denounce a curse against him, if he should persist in refusing, 
that he consented to remain at Geneva / and that he at length sub- 
mitted himself to the will of the presbytery, and of the magis- 
trates, by whose suffrages, the consent of the people being obtained, 
he was elected and set apart as a pastor, and also as a public 
teacher of divinity, in the month of August, 1536.t From this state- 
ment one fact is indubitable, viz. that Xhere y/d^s di presbytery m 
Geneva before Calvin went thither. Another fact is equally clear, 
viz. that the settlement of a minister was considered as a proper 



* Heylin' s Hist, of Presbyter . p. 4 — 9. 

t See Beza's Life of Calvin,- and Melchior Mam's do. p. 68. 



392 LETTER VII. 

act of the presbytery. Nor will it in the least degree serve the 
cause of my opponents to contend that the ecclesiastical system of 
Geneva was, afterwards, new modelled and improved by Calvin, 
Be it so. Still it is certain that the leading principles of Presbyte- 
rian polity, viz. the doctrine oi ministerial parity , and the govern- 
ment of the church by presbyteries, were received and in use, 
before the public ministry of Calvin commenced, or any of his 
writings had appeared. 

Dr. Henry More, in his Divine Dialogues, p. 82. speaking of 
the reformation of Geneva, says, — "As for Calvin, the charge of 
" rebellion upon him is, that he expelled the bishop of Geneva, 
" who was the chief magistrate of that city, and changed the go- 
" vernment, and so carried on the reformation. J3ut this is a mere 
" calumny agaiust Calvin, and without all ground^ for not so much 
*^ as that is true, that Calvin was one of the first planters of the 
" reformation at Geneva ; and much less that he, or any other re- 
" formers expelled the bishop out of that city. It was Farel, Vi- 
*^ ret, and Froment, that, by their preaching, converted Geneva, 
" in the bishop's absence, who fled away eight months before, be- 
" ing hated by the citizens for the rape of a virgin, and many 
" adulteries with their wives.*' 

That Dr. Bowden and Mr. How should be unacquainted with 
all this, is truly surprising ! I know, indeed, that it is expecting 
too much to suppose that these gentlemen will take the trouble to 
investigate more than one side of this controversy. But when 
their own favourite writers might have informed them of all the 
facts above stated, it is rather singular that they should have yet to 
learn them. 

Another allegation of these gentlemen is, that Calvin, in the 
early part of his public life, thought very favourably of diocesan 
episcopacy, and even believed and acknowledged its apostolic ori- 
gin. That afterioards, when he had undertaken to erect a church 
on a different model, and especially when he had the prospect of 
attaining great distinction in the Presbyterian establishment of Ge- 
neva, he began to alter his views and his language ; but that, even 
after he had fairly embarked in support of Presbyterian principles, 
he rather defended himself by the plea of necessity than divine au- 
thority. Nay, Mr. How declares, that Calvin, in rearing [the 
church of Geneva, acknowledged that he was departing from the 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 393 

primitive discipline ; tliat he considered prelacy as an apostolic 
institution ; and that he expressed a decided preference in favour 
of this form of government : But adds, " I deny not that Calvin 
" and Beza held, afterwards, a language more preshyterial. At 
" length, indeed, schism, and the pride of sect, either changed their 
" sentiments, or perverted their principles. In fact, the conduct of 
" these men, in relation to the ministry of the christian church, 
" presents one of the most melancholy examples of the prevalence 
" of pride over virtue, and of the unhappy influence of schism, in 
" blinding and infatuating the mind, that the history of human 
" frailty has ever recorded." Letters, p. 62 — 75. Dr. Bowden, 
is equally positive in asserting, that Calvin believed and acknow- 
ledged the apostolic origin of episcopacy ; and that he justified him- 
self in departing from it only on the ground of necessity. In fact, 
by subscribing and referring to Dr. HoharVs statement of the case, 
in his Apology for Apostolic Order, p. 91 — 117? the reverend 
professor has gone the whole length of Mr. How. 

When I read assertions of this kind, I cannot help recollect- 
ing, in a well known and popular fictitious history, a certain chap- 
ter which bears the following title—" An humble attempt to prove 
" that an author will write the better for having some knowledge 
" of the subject on which he writes." If I had the least apprehen- 
sion that these gentlemen had ever perused the works of Calvin, 
or really knew what he has left on record upon this subject, such a 
representation, so frequently and confidently made, would excite 
feehngs more unfavourable than those of astonishment. But as I 

have no such apprehension, and feel perfectly persuaded that the 
perusal of a few detached passages, forms the sum total of their 
acquaintance with Calving writings, I cannot find in my heart to 
apply a severe epithet to a misrepresentation so total concerning 
the history of his language and opinions. 

• The truth is that the earliest of Calvin's writings contain some 
of the strongest declarations in favour of Presbyterian principles 
that are to be found in all his works. His Institutions, his first 
theological work, were published in 1536, before he had ever seen 
Geneva ; before he ever thought of settling there ; and when he 
was so far from aspiring to pre-eminence in any Presbyterian es- 
tablishment, that he does not appear to have had in view the pas- 
toral ofl&ce in any church. Now it is certain that this work is as 
3 D 



394 LETTER VII. 

decisive on the subject of presbytery as any that ever came from 
his pen. At that period, when his mind appears to have been as 
dispassionate and impartial as ever that of a reformer was; when 
he had no visible temptation to deviate from the apostolic model 5 
and when both habit and prejudice were leagued against presby- 
tery, and in favour of episcopacy ; at that period, and in that work, 
he decidedly declared himself an advocate of Presbyterian govern- 
ment, as the truly apostolic and primitive plan. But the follow- 
ing quotations from it will place this fact in a stronger light, than 
any reasonings or statements of mine. 

Book IV. chap. iii. In this chapter he expressly declares it to 
be his intention to exhibit " that order by which it was the Lord's 
" will to have his church governed." — In doing this, he unequivo- 
cally delivers it as his opinion, that the apostolic model of church 
government was Presbyterian ; — that both the office and ordina- 
tion of bishop and presbyter were the same 5 that the scriptural 
bishop was .the pastor of a single church ; that there were some- 
times more bishops than one in the primitive churches, and all on 
a perfect equality ; and that there were ruling elders and deacons 
in those churches, exactly on the Presbyterian plan. 

The following extracts, out of many that might be made, are 
decisive. " Whereas I have indiscriminately called those who 
" govern the churches, bishops y jjresbytersy and pastors, I have 
" done so according to the usage of scripture, which indifferently 
" employs these terms to designate the same officer ; for whoever 
" executes the office of ministers of the gospel, to them the scrip- 
'^ tures give the title of bishops. So by Paul, where Titus is com- 
" manded to ordain elders in every city, it is immediately added, 
^'for a bishop must be blameless, 8fc. Tit. i. 5. So, in another 
" place, (^Philip, i. 1.) he salutes many bishops in one church. And 
" in the Acts it is related that he called together the elders of Ephe- 
** suSj whom he himself, in his discourse to them, styles bishops. 
" Acts XX. 17. But here it is to be observed, that hitherto we have 
" only taken notice of those offices which pertain to the ministry 
" of the word 5 neither doth Paid make mention of any other in 
" the fourth chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians, which we be- 
" fore cited. But in the epistle to the Romans (xii. 7') and in the 
" first epistle to the Corinthians, (xii. 28.) he reckons up other 
** offices, as powers, the gift of healing, interpretation, government. 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 395 

" taking care of the poor. Of these, I omit such as were merely 
" temporary, because it is not worth the trouble to dwell upon 
" them. But there are two that are permanent, government, 
" and the care of the poor. Those who governed were, in my 
" opinion, elders chosen out of the laymen of each congregation, 
" who, together with the bishops, bore rule in the correction of 
" morals, and in the exercise of discipline. For no one can other- 
" wise expound that which the apostle saith, (Ro7n. xii. 8.) He that 
" rulethj let him do it with diligence. Every church, therefore, 
'* from the beginning, had its own senate, collected from among 
" the godly, grave and holy, who had that jurisdiction over the 
" correction of vices of which we shall speak hereafter. — And, 
'^ moreover, that this was the order of more than one age, expe- 
" rience itself teaches. This office of government, therefore, is 
" necessary for all ages." 

" The care of the poor was committed to the deacons AI- 

" though the word deacon has a more extensive meaning ; yet 
" the Scripture especially calls them deacons, to whom the church 
" hath given in charge the distribution of alms, and the care of 
" the poor ; and hath appointed them, as it were, stewards of 
" the common treasury of the poor — whose origin, institution, and 
" office are described by Luke in Acts vi. For when a murmuring 
" arose among the Grecians, because in the ministrations to the 
" poor, their widows were neglected, the apostles, excusing them- 
" selves, as not being adequate to the execution of both offices, 
" both the preaching of the word, and the ministering at tables, 
" requested the multitude to choose seven honest men to whom 
" they might com.mit that business. Behold what manner of dea- 
" cons the apostolic church had ; and what kind of deacons it be- 
" comes us to have in conformity with their example !" 

Book iv. Chap. 4th. Having treated of the order of the church 
as " delivered in the pure word of God, and of the ministries as 
instituted by Christ," he undertakes, in this chapter, to exhibit the 
order which obtained in the " ancient church," that is, as he 
explains it, the church as it existed soon after the apostolic age, 
and before the rise of the papacy. Now this " ancient church," he 
expressly declares, deviated from the pure apostolic model ; but, 
at the same time, he supposes that the deviation was not great or 
essential. He proceeds, " As we have declared that there are 



396 LETTER VII. 

" three sorts of rainisters commended to us in the Scriptures ; so 
" all the ministers that the ancient church had, it divided into three 
" orders. For out of the order of presbyters, part were chosen 
^^ pastors and teachers, and the rest bore rule in the admistration 
" of discipline. To the deacons was committed the care of the 
" poor, and the distribution of alms. All those to whom the 
" office of teaching was committed, were called Presbyters. They, 
" in every city, chose one, out of their own number, to whom they, 
" specially, gave the title of bishop ; that dissensions might not 
" grow out of equality as is wont to be the case. Yet the bishop 
" was not so in honour and dignity above the rest, as to have any 
" dominion over his colleagues ; but the office which the consul 
" had in the senate, to propose business ; to collect opinions ; to 
" preside in consuhing, admonishing, and exhorting ; to direct, by 
" his authority, the whole process of business; and to put in exe- 
*' cution that which was decreed by the common counsel of all, 
*^ — the same office had the bishop in the assembly of presbyters, 
" And even this the ancient writers themselves confess, was brought 
" in by human consent, on account of the necessity of the times. — 
" Therefore Jerome, in his commentary on the epistle to Titus, 
" saith — A presbyter was the same with a bishop. And before 
" there were, by the devil's instigation, dissensions in religion, and 
" it was said among the people, I am of Paul, and I of Cephas, 
" the churches were governed by the common council of presby- 
" ters. Afterwards, that the seeds of dissension might be plucked 
" up, all the care was devolved on one person. — As, therefore, the 
" presbyters know that by the custom of the church, they are sub- 
^^ ject to him who presides among them ; so let the bishops know, 
" that they are above the presbyters rather by custom, than by any 
" real appointment of Christ ; and that they ought lo govern the 
" churches in common. And in another place, (^Epist. adEvagr.) 
" he teaches how ancient an institution this was; for he says, 
" that at Alexandria, from Mark, the evangelist, down to Hera.. 
" das and Dionysius, the presbyters always placed one, chosen 
" out of their own number, in a higher station, and called him 
" bishop. Every city, then, had a college of presbyters, who were 
" pastors and teachers, and who all executed among the people 
" the offices of instructing, exhorting, and exercising discipline, 
" which Paul enjoins on bishops, Titus I 9- And every one of 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 397 

" these colleges, (as I said before,) was under the presidency of 
" one bishop, who was only so far above the rest in dignity, as to 
" be himself subject to the assembly of his brethren." 

In chapter 11th, sect. 6, of the same book, speaking of the ex- 
ercise of discipline in particular churches, he says—" But such 
*' authority was not in the power of one man, to do every thing 
" according to his own will j but in the assembly of the elders, 
" which was the same thing in the church that a senate is in a 
" city. The common and usual manner was for the authority of 
" the church to be exercised by a senate of elders, of whom (as I 
" have before said,) there were two sorts, for some were ordained 
" to teach, and others only to rule in matters of discipline. Bat 
" by little and little this institution degenerated from its original 
" character ; so that even in the time of Ambrose, the clergy alone 
" had cognizance of ecclesiastical causes, of which he complains in 
" these words — The ancient synagogue," says he, " and after- 
" wards the church, had elders, without whose counsel nothing was 
" done." — We see how much the holy man was displeased, that 
" there should be a falling off in any respect, when as yet things 
" continued, to say the least, in a tolerable condition. — What 
" would he have said if he had seen the mis-shapen ruins which 
*' now appear, and which exhibit scarcely any vestige of the an- 
" cient edifice ? What lamentation would he have expressed ? 
" For, first, against Jaw and right, the bishop hath usurped to 
" himself i\\?i\. authority which was vested in the church. For it is 
*' all one as if the consul had expelled the senate, and assumed 
" the empire to himself alone. For surely, though he is in honour 
" superior to the rest, yet there is more authority in the college 
" than in one man. It was, therefore, a very wicked deed, that one 
" man, having gotten into his own hands the power which was 
" before common to the whole college, paved the way to tyranni- 
" cal domination, snatched from the church her own right, and 
" abolished the presbytery, which, by the Spirit of Christ had 
" been ordained." 

Book IV. Chapter v. Sect. 15. " Now let the deacons come 
" forth, and that holy distribution which they have of the church's 
'* goods 5 although they by no means, at present, create their 
" deacons for that purpose. For they (the papists) enjoin upon 
" them nothing else but to minister at the altar, to read or sing the 



398 LETTER VII. 

" Gospels, and to perform I know not what trifles. Nothing of the 
«* alms, nothing of the care of the poor, nothing of the whole func- 
" tion which, m former times, they executed. I speak of the very 
" institution ; for if we have a respect to what they do, it is not in 
" itself an office, but only a step toward the priesthood. Therefore 
" they mock the church ivith this lying deaconry. Truly therein 
" they have nothing like, either the institution of the apostles, or 
" ancient usage." 

Such was the language of Calvin in 1536, when he was just en- 
tering on his great career. And this was his uniform language to 
the end of his life. I cannot find a single passage in all his wri- 
tings in which he speaks with greater severity of diocesan episco- 
pacy, than in some of the preceding extracts. On their import it 
is unnecessary to enlarge. They speak for themselves. 

The following extracts from Calvin^s commentary, written at 
different periods of his life, and under different circumstances, will 
show that his opinion on the subject in dispute was uniformly the 
same. 

In his commentary on Philip, i. 1. written in the year 1548, 
we find the following passage. " He calls the pastors, bishops, 
" for the sake of honour. Moreover we infer from this place that 
" the name of bishop is common to all ministers of the loord, since 
" the apostle assigns a plurality of bishops to a single church. 
" The names bishop and pastor are, therefore, synonymous. 
" And this passage is one of those which Jerome cites to prove the 
" same thing, in his epistle to Evagriits, and in his exposition of 
" the epistle to Titus. Afterwards it became customary that he who 
" presided in the bench of presbyters of a particular church, should 
" alone be called bishop. This, however, arose from human cus- 
^^ torn, and is by no means supported by scripture. — I confess, in- 
" deed, that such are the tempers and habits of men that order 
" cannot be maintained among ministers of the word, unless one 
" preside. But I speak of particular bodies ; not of whole pro- 
" vinces; and much less of the whole world. And although it is 
"not proper to dispute about words; yet it is better in speaking, 
" to follow the Holy Spirit, the author of language, than to change 
" the forms of expression established by him for the worse. — For 
" out of the corrupted signification of a word, this evil arose, that 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 399 

" thence, as if all the presbyters were not colleagues, and called to 
" the same function^ one, under the pretext of a new title, arro- 
" gated to himself a dominion over other s.^^ 

In his exposition of Titus i. 5. written in 1549, he thus writes. 
" Freshyters or elders, it is well known, are not so denominated 
" on account of their age, since young men are sometimes chosen 
" to this office, as, for instance, Timothy ; but it has always been 
" customary, in all languages, to apply this title, as a term of ho- 
" nour, to all rulers. And as we gather, from the first epistle to 
" Timothy, that there were ttco kinds of elders, so here the con- 
" text shows that no other that teaching elders are to be under- 
" stood j that is, those who were ordained to teach ; because the 
" same persons are immediately afterwards called bishops. — -It 
" may be objected, that too much power seems to be given to Titus, 
" when the apostle commands him to appoint ministers over all 
" the churches. This, it may be said, is little less than kingly 
" power ; for, on this plan, the right of choice is taken away from 
" the particular churches, and the right of judging in the case from 
" the college of pastors ; and this would be to profane the whole 
" of the sacred discipline of the church. But the answer is easy. 
" Every thing was not entrusted to the will of Titus as an indivi- 
" dual, nor was he allowed to impose such bishops on the churches 
" as he pleased ; but he was commanded to preside in the elec- 
" tions, as a moderator, as it is necessary for some one to do. This 
" is a mode of speaking exceedingly common. Thus a consul, or 
" regent, or dictator is said to create consuls, because he convenes 
" assemblies for the purpose of making choice of them. So also 
" Luke uses the same mode of speaking concerning Faul and 
*« Barnabas, in the Acts of the Apostles ; not that they alone, 
" authoiitatively appointed pastors over the churches, without 
" their being tried or approved ; but they ordained suitable men, 
" who had been elected, or chosen by the people. We learn also, 
" from this place, that there was not, then, such an equality among 
" the ministers of the church, as was inconsistent with some one 
" presiding in authority and council.* This, however, is nothing 

* The original of this sentence is as follows — Disdmus quidem ex hoc 
locd, non earn fuisse tunc equalitatem inter ecclesiae ministros quin unus 
aUquis authoriiate et consilio prxesset. Dr. Bowden and Mr. How both 



400 LETTER VII. 

" like the tyrannical and unscriptural prelacy which reigns in 
" the papacy. The plan of the apostles was extremly different." 

On the 7th verse of the same chapter, he thus expresses hiraself 
— " Moreover tliis place abundantly teaches us that there is no 
" difference between p?'es67/^ers and bishops; because the apos- 
" tie now calls promiscuously by the second of these names, those 
" whom he had before called presbyters, and indeed the argument 
" which follows, employs both names indifferently in the same 
" sense ; which Jerome hath observed, as v/ell in his commentary 
" on this passage, as in his epistle to Evagrius. And hence we 
" may see how much more has been yielded to the opinions of 
" men than was decent : because the style of the Holy Spirit 
" being abrogated, a custom introduced by the will of man, pre- 
" vailed. — I do not, indeed, disapprove of the opinion, that, soon 
" after the commencement of the church, every college of bishops 
'' had some one to act as moderator. But that a name of office 
" which God had given in common to all, should be transferred to 
" an individual alone, the rest being robbed of it, was both 
" iiyurious and absurd. Wherefore so to pervert the language of 
" the Holy Spirit, as that the same expressions should convey a 
" meaning to us different from that which he intended, partakes 
" too much o( profane audacity, ^^ 

In his commentary on 1 Feter v. 1. wrhten in 1551, and de- 
dicated to Edward VI. of England, the following passage occurs. 
" Presbyters. By this title he designates Fastoi's, and whoever 
" were appointed to the government of the church. And since 
" Peter calls himself a presbyter, like the rest, it is hence apparent 
" that this name was common ; which, indeed, from many other 



quote this sentence, both undertake to translate it for the benefit of their 
readers, and both concur in giving the following translation — " Hence 
" we learn that there was not any equality among the ministers of the 
" church, but that one was placed over the rest in authority and coun- 
"cil." This is one of the principal quotations from Ca/wn on which 
they found the assertion that he believed in the apostolical origin of epis- 
copacy ! Instead of saying what they ascribe to it, it asserts directly the 
contrary. It declares that there was an official equality among the minis- 
ters of the primitive church ; but, at the same time, an equality by no 
means inconsistent with one being Moderator. This is precisely the Pres- 
byterian doctrine aiui practice. 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 401 

" passages appears still more clearly. Moreover, by this title he 
" claimed to himself authority ; as if he had said, that he admo- 
" nished pastors in his own right, because he was one of their num- 
'^ ber; for among colleagues there ought to be this mutual privilege. 
'* Whereas if he had enjoyed any pre-eminence of authority among 
" them, he might have urged that, and it would have been more 
" pertinent to the occasion : But although he was an apostle, yet 
*^ he knew that this gave him no authority over his colleagues ; but 
" that he was rather joined with the rest in a social office." 

Ca/i'm's exposition of the first epistle to Timothy was written in 
the year 1556, and dedicated to the Duke of Somerset^ Lord Pro- 
tector of England. Jn his remarks on the fifth chapter and seven- 
teenth verse, of that epistle, he speaks thus : " From this passage 
" we may gather that there were then ttoo kinds of presbyters, 
"because they were not a?/ ordained to the work o( teaching. For 
" the words plainly mean, that some ruled well, to whom no part 
" of the public instruction was committed. And verily there were 
*' chosen from among the people, grave and approved men, who, 
" in common council, and joint authority with the pastors, adminis- 
" tered the discipline of the church, and acted the part of censors 

" for the correction of morals. This practice Ambrose complains 

" had fallen into disuse, through the indolence, or rather the pride 
" of the teaching elders, while they wished to be alone distin- 
"guished." 

I will only add, that, in his commentary on Acts xx. 28, written 
in 1560, a short time before his death, he expresses himself thus : 
" Concerning the word Bishop, it is observable, that Paul gives 
" this title to all the jjresbyters of Ephesus : from which we may 
" infer, that according to scripture, presbyters diflered, in no re- 
" spect, from bishops : but that it arose from corruption, and a 
<^ departure from primitive purity, that those who held the first 
*' seats in particular cities, began to be called bishops. I say that 
" it arose from corruption, not that it is an evil for some one, in 
" each college of pastors, to be distinguished above the rest; but 
" because it is intolerable presumption, that men, in perverting 
" the titles of scripture to their own huftiour, do not hesitate to 
" alter the meaning of the Holy Spirit." 

But, in spite of all these repeated and positive declarations of 
Calvin, Dr. Bowden and Mr. How still insist, that he acknow- 
3 E 



402 LETTER VII. 

ledged the apostolical institution of prelacy, and offered the plea of 
necessity for adopting the Presbyterian government in Geneva. To 
prove this, they produce two extracts from his writings, which have 
really nothing to do with the subject; but which, ever since the 
time of the ignorant or disingenuous DureJl, have been triumphant- 
ly quoted by high churchmen, for a similar purpose. 

The first of these extracts is from Calviii's famous letter to Car- 
dinal Sadolet, and is in the following words. " We do not deny 
" that we want a discipline such as the ancient church (Vetus Ec- 
" clesia) had. But with what justice can we be accused of sub- 
'^ verting discipline, by those very men (the papists) who alone 
** have entirely destroyed it ; and who, when we endeavoured to 
" restore it, have hitherto prevented us ? But with respect to doc- 
" iriney we are willing to be compared with the ancient church."* 

How far this extract really goes towards proving the point in- 
tended to be established by it, will appear from the following analysis 
of the letter. Calvin, in his reply to Sadolet, pursues the method 
which the cardinal had adopted in arranging his charges against 
the Church of Geneva. He firmly defends his own ministry, which 
we all know was Preshyterian, and v^hich his antagonist had re- 
presented as invalid. He warmly refutes the charge of a?nbiiion, 
and pecwwmry influence, alleged against the reforming ministers. 
After defining what he means by a church ; and after repelling the 
charge, that he had left the church, by showing that he had only 
reformedk ; he invites Sadolet to compare their respective churches 
with the ancient church. The cardinal could not, consistently 
with popish pretensions, submit to be tried by the state of the church 
as described in the New Testament. Calvin, therefore, although 
he considered the apostolic church as the only proper model, waives 
his right, for the sake of argument, and challenges the cardinal to 
compare with antiquity. " Not," says he expressly, " not with 
that form which the apostles appointed, which is the only model of 
a true church 5" but even with the " ancient church/^ as it stood 
in the days of Chrysostom and Basil, among the Greeks ; and of 
Cyprian, Ambrose, 8{c. among the Latins : which " ancient church'' 
he justly asserts, differed-as much from the Church of EomCj at the 
time of his writing, as did the reign of David from that of Zede- 

* .dd Sadoletum Responsio Calvini. Tradatus Theologici. p. 125. 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 403 

kidli. In order to make an impression on popish minds, Calvin 
judged it more suitable to show the defection of their church from 
what they themselves called the standard, than their inconsistency 
with apostolic order, about which they had less concern. 

Calvin maintains in this letter, that the sacraments and the doc- 
trine of the " ancient church," corresponded much more nearly 
with the Reformed than with the Popish Church. He readily con- 
fesses that the discipline of the reformed, differs from that of the 
" ancient church." But he alleges, at the same time, that this con- 
cession cannot avail the cardinal, whose church differs still more 
from that discipline. And he also alleges, that, amidst all the op- 
position and difficulties with which they had to struggle, in the re- 
storation of strict discipline, they were still going on ; that they had 
already approached nearer to the " ancient church" than their po- 
pish neighbours ; and, by perseverance, were likely soon even to 
suipass that model. Now, all this reasoning would have been 
very preposterous, if Calvin had been here speaking of prelacy. 
For how could the church of Geneva^ which was Presbyterian in 
its form, be nearer, on prelatical principles, to the " ancient 
church," than that oi Rome was, which embraced prelacy ? And, 
above all, how could Calvin say that the Church of Geneva was 
still approaching nearer to the " ancient church" in discipline, and 
was likely to surpass it ? Was the church of Geneva then grow- 
ing move prelatical ? No one ever supposed it. The truth is, by 
discipline, Calvin and Sadolet both mean the system of rules for 
directing the whole christian conduct both of ministers and people. 
There is nothing in this part of the argument that has the least 
reference to different orders in the ministry. 

It turns out, then, that this famous extract from the letter to 
Sadolet has nothing to do with the question in dispute ; that the 
tenor of the letter, so far as it bears on prelacy, is directly opposed 
to it ; that the Vetus Ecclesia, the " ancient church," intended 
by Calvin, is not, as he himself expressly declares, the church as 
it was left by the apostles, but as it stood in the third and fourth 
centuries ; that the discipline of which he speaks, has no reference 
to orders in the Christian ministry ; and, of course, that the boast- 
ed passage in question could never have been quoted as affording 
the least hint in favour of prelacy, excepting by those who had 
never read the whole letter, or grossly perverted its evident mean- 



404 LETTER VIJ. 

ing. With the latter, I do not charge Dr. Bowden or Mr. How, 
I take for granted they have never read a sentence of the letter, ex- 
cepting the detached passage under consideration. They have 
been led astray by others, probably as little acquainted with it as 
themselves. 

The other passage which Mr. How quotes as positive proof that 
Calvin believed in the divine institution of prelacy, is taken from 
his Tract De Necessitate ReformandcB EcdesicB, as follows. " If 
" they (the Papists) would exhibit to us anTiierarchy, in which the 
" bishops should be so distinguished, as not to refuse subjection to 
" Christ ; then I will confess that they are worthy of all anathemas, 
" if any such there be, who would not reverence it, and submit 
" themselves to it with the utmost obedience.''* 

This passage, when impartially examined, will be found as little 
to the purpose as the former. It is only saying, that Calvin stood 
ready to approve of a scriptural and primitive episcopacy, when- 
ever it should be introduced. And would not all Presbyterians, 
as well as Cafom, say the same thing? Nay, blessed be God! 
we can go further. It is the happiness of our church that we 
HAVE SUCH AN EPISCOPACY, and we glory in having it. Calvin 
never denied that there were bishops in the days at the apostles. 
No Presbyterian ever denied it. It is for such an episcopacy as 
was established by inspired men in Jerusalem, Ephesus, Antioch, 
and Philippi, that we contend ; and the venerable reformer of 
Geneva meant no other. 

It has been said that Calvin's employing the word hierarchy 
(Jiierarchiam) in this passage, proves that he referred with appro- 
bation to an ecclesiastical constitution embracing different orders 
of clergy. It has been even asserted, that this word is exclusively 
appropriated to government by prelates; and that no instance 
can be found of its application to any other kind of ecclesiastical 
regimen. This is a total mistake. The word hierarchy simply 
implies sacred or ecclesiastical government. It may be applied 
with as much propriety to Presbyterianism or Independency, as to 
diocesan episcopacy. It has been often so applied by the best 
writers. But, what settles the matter is, that Calvin himself so 
applies it. In his Institutions, Lib. iv. Cap. 5. he speaks of" that 

* /. Calvini Tradaius Tfieologicif p. 69. 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 405 

hierarchy or spiritual government, ^^ which was left in the church 
by the apostles, and which he expressly declares, in the same' 
chapter to have been Presbyterian in its form. Many other in- 
stances might be produced in which this Reformer has used the 
same word in a similar sense. When gentlemen undertake to inter- 
' pret Calvin, and especially to speak with so much positiveness 
of his meaning, they ought to have some acquaintance with his 
writings. 

Where now, let me ask, is the proof of which my opponents 
speak so much, and so confidently, that Calvin believed in the 
divine institution of prelacy 5 that he lamented the want of it in 
Geneva; and that he justified himself by the plea of necessity, in 
establishing Presbyterian government in that Church ? It is not 
to be found. No such proof exists. They have not produced a 
syllable which looks like it. Nor do I believe that they can pro- 
duce a solitary scrap, from all his voluminous writings, nor any 
well attested declaration,* made at any period of his public life, 
which will bear such a construction. 

The truth is, Calvin never pretended any such necessity. On 
the contrary, he steadfastly represented the Genevan form of 
government and discipline, as strictly agreeable to the word of 
God, and as that which he felt himself bound, by obedience to 
Christ, to establish and defend. " Besides," says he, " that our 
" conscience acquits us in the sight of God, the thing itself will 
** answer for us in the sight of men. Nobody has yet appeared 
" that could prove that we had altered any one thing, which God has 
" commanded ; or that we have appointed any neio thing contrary 
" to his word; or that we have turned aside from the truth, to 



* I say well attested^ because the story which Dr. Bowden gravely re- 
peats of Calvin^ Bullinger, &c. havhig- written tp Edward VI. in 1549, 
** offering to make him their defender, and to have bishops in their 
churches, for better unity and concord," is not so attested. I think no 
impartial reader can peruse the account, as given by Strype, without 
suspecting the whole to be a fable. Let us see the letter; and we will 
answer to the charge. But even admitting this to be true, to what does 
it amount ? Why, that Calvin, in an evil hour, made a concession with 
respect to prelates, similar to that which Melancthon had made before 
him, with respect to the Pope ; and that in direct opposition to all his 
solemnly declared principles, and uniform practice. 



406 LETTER VII. 

" follow any evil opinion. On the contrary, it is manifest that we 
" have reformed our church merely by God's word, which is 
" the only rule by which it is to be ordered and lawfully defended. 
" It is, indeed, an unpleasant work to alter what has been formerly 
" in use, were it not that the order which God has once fixed, 
^^ must be esteemed by us as sacred and inviolable ; insomuch that 
" if it has, for a time, been laid aside, it must of necessity, (and 
" whatever the consequences should prove,) be restored again. 
" No antiquity, no prescription of custom, may be allowed to be 
" an obstacle in this case, that the government of the church 
" which God has appointed, should not be perpetual, since the 
*^ Lord himself has oncejixed zV."* 

So much for the opinion of Calvin on the subject o^ episcopacy . 
I shall now proceed to take notice of some other allegations 
which Dr. Bowden has made concerning this great man, and which 
are as destitute of foundation as those which have been already 
refuted. 

Doctor Bowden asserts, on the authority of Dr. Learning, that 
Calvin never was ordained; and represents that gentleman as 
having derived his information from Beza. The doctor has suf- 
fered himself to be led astray, by an ignorant or dishonest guide. 
Beza says no such thing. On the contrary, after informing us that 
Calvin had frequently preached while he was yet a youth, in the 
communion of the church of Rome, and that he did this without 
having received any Popish orders; Beza proceeds to state that 
he was set apart (designatus') to the ministry by the presbytery of 
Geneva, in the month of August in the year 1536.t Besides, even 
if there were no record establishing the time and place of his ordi- 
nation, we might fairly presume that such a solemnity had taken 
place, because it was the general sentiment of the reformers that 
ordination by the imposition of hands is both scriptural and neces- 
sary; because this mode of constituting the ministry is well known 
to have been the habit of the limes; because Calvin in his Insti- 
tutions, published only a few weeks before he went to Geneva, 
expressly enjoins ordination in this manner; and because in the 

* Epist. ad quendam Curatum; in Calvin, Epist. p. 386. 
f See Beza's Life of Calvin. 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 407 

confession of the French churches, which he drew up a short time 
afterwards, such ordination is declared to be essential to a regular 
ministry. Now is it credible, that Calvin, when it was perfectly 
within his reach, would have suffered himself, under all the cir- 
cumstances which have been mentioned, to be without that seal of 
office, which habit and public opinion imperiously demanded, and 
which both before and after, he himself represented as so highly 
important ? It is not credible. We should be bound, on every 
principle of probability, to take for granted that he was regularly 
ordained, even if no hint had ever been given on the subject by a 
single writer. 

But we have other evidence that Calvin was regularly ordained. 
Junius, the learned professor of divinity in the University of 
Lei/den, before mentioned, who was a contemporary with Calvin, 
explicitly states the fact. Bellarmine had asserted that, before Cal- 
vin, presbyters had not undertaken to ordain. Junius contradicts 
him ; asserts that the reformers who preceded Calvin, held and prac- 
tised Presbyterian ordination ; and declares that by some of thesej 
" his predecessors, Calvin was himself ordained."* And Cardi- 
nal Bellarmine, s^QdXCmg of the validity of ordinations as perform- 
ed in the protestant churches, says, " Neither Luther, nor Zuin- 
gle, nor Calvin were bishops, but only presbyters,''^ Neque Luther- 
us, neque Zuinglius, neque Calvinus episcopi fuerunt, sed tantum 
presbyteri.i Neither the learning nor the talents of this cele- 
brated papist will be denied. He lived at the same time with Calvin, 
and must have known his history ; and he had as strong tempta- 
tion, as Dr. Boicden can have, to degrade both the personal and 
ecclesiastical character of that reformer j yet he explicitly concedes 
that he was reputed a presbyter. 

But supposing the fact established that he never was ordained, 
either in the Presbyterian, the Episcopal, or any other mode. 
What then } It has no more to do with the argument in question 
than with the remotest speculation in mathematical or physical 
science. Has Calvin been the ordainer of all Presbyterian minis- 
ters since he entered the church ? Did he ever undertake, alone, to 
ordain even a single minister ? It is one of the numerous advan- 

• Fr, Junii Animadversiones in Bellarm, Controv. v. Lib. i. Cap. 3. 
19. 
t Bellarmin. Controv. v. Lib. Cap. 3. 



408 LETTER VII. 

tagesof Presbyterianism that it affords much greater security against 
spurious ordinations, than episcopacy. It vests the power of or- 
daining, not in a si7igle man, but in a preshytery ; so that a case 
can never occur, among us, in which a defect of ecclesiastical 
character in an individual, can vitiate an ordination. 

But Dr. Boivden not only denies that there is any evidence that 
Calvin was ever ordained ; he even goes so far as to express a 
very serious doubt whether the reformers ever considered him in 
\h.Q Y\ghi oi ?i minister dii all. Instead of taking up your time to 
express m}^surprise at a suggestion so extraordinary, I shall con- 
tent myself with presenting two or three testimonies, which will 
show how Calvin was viewed by contemporary English divines. 

The celebrated martyr, Philpot, a very eminent divine^of the 
Church of England, who'suffered for the truth in the reign of Queen 
Maryy said to his popish judges — " Which of you is able to an- 
" swer Calvin^s Institutions, who is minister of Geneva ? I am 
" sure you blaspheme that godly man, and that godly churchy 
" where he is minister, as it is your church's condition, when you 
" cannot answer men by learning, to oppress them, with blasphe- 
" mies and false reports. For in the matter oi predestination, he 
" (^Calvin) is in no other opinion than all the doctors of the church 
" be, agreeing with the scriptures." On a subsequent examina- 
tion he declared — " I allow the Church of Geneva, and the doc- 
" trine of the same 5 for it is una, catholica, et apostolica, and 
" doth follow the doctrines which the apostles did preach ; and 
" the doctrine taught and preached in King Edward's days was 
*^ also according to the same."* 

Bishop JeweVs opinion of Calvin and of Calvinism will appear 
from the following declarations. His antagonist Harding, a viru- 
lent papist, is continually reviling the bishop as a disciple of Cal- 
vin, and the English Protestants as Calvinists. The bishop never 
disavows the charge, and repeatedly defends Calvin in terms of 
high respect. " Touching IMr. Calvin,'' says he, " it is a great 
" wrong untruly to report so reverend a father, and so worthy an 
" ornament of the church of God. If you had ever known the or- 
" der of the Church at Geneva, and had seen four thousand peo- 
*- pie or more receiving the holy mysteries together at one coramu- 

• Book of Martyrs, Vol. iii. PhilpoVs Examinations, 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 409 

" nioHj you could not, without great shame and want of modesty, 
" thus untruly have published to the world that, by Mr. Calvin's 
" doctrine, the sacraments of Christ are superfluous."* 

Bishop Hooper^ when he was imprisoned for his adherence to 
the truth, in the reign of Queen Mary^ wrote in the most friendly 
and affectionate manner to Calvin^ addressing him in terms of pro- 
found respect for his ecclesiastical y as well as \\\s personal charac- 
ter, and begging his, and his churches prayers. 

Bishop Hall, though not a contemporary of Calvin, yet lived so 
near his time, as to be perfectly acquainted with the light in which 
he was viewed by the English reformers. Speaking of him, he 
says, " That the Latin or Western church, subject to the Romish 
" tyranny (unto the very times of Luther) was a true church, in 
" which a saving profession of the truth of Christ was found, our 
" learned Dr. Field hath saved me the labour to prove, by the 
" suffrages of our best and most renowned divines, among whom 
" he cites Calvin, Bucer, Melancthon, Beza, &c.'' Here Bishop 
Hall not only acknowledges the illustrious reformer of Geneva, as 
one of the best and most renowned of divines / but even places 
him at the head of the list ! 

Dr. Bowden asserts, that soon after the reformation commenced 
in England, Calvin made an officious offer of his services, to aid 
the cause in that country ; that the English reformers, knowing 
his " arrogant" and " tyrannical'' spirit, " civilly rejected his 
offer;" and that this "displeased him to such a degree, that 
" although he had before spoken handsome things of the church of 
" England, yet from that time he began to say harsh things of 
" her." Here again, I am compelled to say, Dr. Bowden shows 
himself to be entirely unacquainted with facts ; and with facts too, 
which he might have learned from his own historians. 

The truth is, the services of Calvin in the cause of the reforma- 
tion, instead of being obtrusively and officiously offered by him, 
were expressly and warmly solicited by Archbishop Cranmer, 
This is attested so decidedly by the most impartial historians, that 
the only wonder is, how a gentleman of Dr. Bowden^s character, 
could stoop to be the retailer of so stale a calumny as the opposite 
story unquestionably is. In the reign of Edward VI. as Stri/pe 

* Jewel's Defence of his ^po/cg-y, part ii. p. 188. 
3 F 



410 LETTER VII. 

tells us, Archbishop Cranmer having formed a plan of drawing up 
a book of articles, which should comprehend every thing essen- 
tial relating to faith and practice, and in which all protestants 
might unite ; sent letters to Calvin, BuUinger, and Mela?icthon, 
disclosing his pious design, and requesting " their counsel and 
furtherance." Calvin wrote repeatedly and freely to the Arch- 
bishop pn this subject ; and in the course of his correspondence, 
took the liberty of gently imputing blame to Cranmer iox not having 
made greater progress in the reformation. Cranmer does not 
appear, however, to have been at all offended with Calvin for this 
freedom, but retained a high esteem and value for him, and kept up 
an affectionate intercourse with him to the end of life.* 

Archbishop Cranmer, not only kept up a friendly communica- 
tion with Calvin, as long as he lived ; but he also constantly con- 
sulted him, on all the leading questions connected with the reform- 
ation. On a certain occasion, Calvin despatched a messenger to 
England, with letters to the Duke of Somerset, and likewise to 
Edward, to whom he presented, at the same time, a volume of his 
Commentary, just before published, and dedicated to the King. 
Both the king and his council were much gratified with this com- 
munication ; and Archbishop Cranmer, in particular, was so much 
pleased, as to send word to Calvin that he could do nothing more 
profitable to the church, than to write often to the King.t 

Nor is this all. Calvin was not only respectfully consulted by 
the English reformers ; but he had also much injiuence among 
them. That great deference was paid to his judgment, will appear 
from this fact, that on the first appearance of the English hiturgy, 
it prescribed ^ra^/in^ /or the dead, chrism, extreme unction, and 
other Popish superstitions. These Calvin, in a letter to the 
Protector, very frankly and decidedly blamed. The conse- 
quence of which was, that all these offensive things were left out, 
agreeably to his advice. Dr. Heylin himself declares that these 
alterations were made in compliance with Calvin's wishes. — " The 
" first Liturgy, ^^ says he, " was discontinued, and the second su- 
" perinduced upon it, to give satisfaction unto Calvin's cavils, the 

• Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, p. 407—411. 

t Strype*s Memorials of Cranmer, p. 413. Also Christian Observer, 
Vol. III. p. 628. 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 411 

" curiosities of some, and the mistakes of others, his friends and 
" followers."* And Dr. Nichols gives us the same information 
" Four years afterwards," says he, " the Book of Common Prayer 
" underwent another review ; wherein some ceremonies and usages 
" were laid aside, and some new prayers added, at the instance of 
" Mr. Calvin of Geneva, and Bucer, a foreign divine, who was 
" invited to be a professor at Cambridge. ^^f 

Nor was the authority of Calvin without its influence, in draw- 
ing up the Articles of the Church of England. It is commonly 
said, by our episcopal brethren, that those articles are anti-Calvi- 
nisiic ; and that especially on the doctrine of predestination, as 
exhibited in the seventeenth article, the reformers held, and meant 
to express, a different opinion from that of Calvin. Now it hap- 
pens that this article itself bears the most unquestionable internal 
evidence of the contrary. The qualifying clause toward the end 
of it, which has been quoted as decisive proof that the framers 
rejected Calvinism, is nearly copied from Calvin's Institutes; 
and the latter part of it is a literal translation of that reformer's 
caution against the abuse of this doctrine. For evidence of the 
former, see his Institutes, iii. 2. 4. 5. compared with the article. 
For proof of the latter, read the following — Proinde, in rebus 
agendis, ea est nobis perspicienda Dei voluntas quam verba suo 
declarat. Instit. i. 17. 5. " Furthermore, in our doings, that 
" will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared 
" to us in the word of God." Art. I7th. 

Ofthe point of light in which Calvin and his opinions were 
viewed by the leading divines ofthe church of England, during the 
reigns of E/z2a6e^/i and James I. the following attestation of Dr. 
Heylin, a bitter enemy, affords the most unquestionable evidence. 
" It cannot be denied but that^ by the error of these times, the 
" reputation which Calvin had attained to in both Universities, and 
" the extreme diligence of his followers, there was a general tenr 
" dency unto his opinions ; his book of institutes being, for the 
" most part, the foundation on which the young divines of those 
" days did build their studies."! Again he declares, " Of any men 



* History of the Preshyt.\i. 12.207. 

f Comment, on the Book of Com. Prayer^ Pref. p. 

t See Heylin's Quinq. Hist. Works, p. 626, &c. 



412 LETTER VII. 

" who publicly opposed the Calvinian tenets, in the University of 
" Oxford, till after the beginning of King James' reign, I must 
" confess that I have hitherto found no good assurance." He 
speaks of two divines, of inferior note, who secretly propagated 
other principles ; and compares these to the prophet Elijah, who 
considered himself as left alone to oppose a whole world of idola- 
ters. Further ; in the reign of Charles I. more than 60 years after 
the final settling of the articles, when a suppression of the Calvin- 
islic doctrines was contemplated by archbishop Laud, Dr. Heylin 
acknowledges, that such was the general attachment of the bishops 
and clergy to these doctrines, that the Arminian party did not dare 
" to venture the determining of these points to a convocation." 
And he again explicitly informs us, that, from the resettling of the 
church under Queen Elizabeth, to the period already mentioned, 
" the maintainers of the anti-Calvinian doctrines were but few m 
number, and made but a very thin appearance."* In short, the 
sum of his representation, compared with other historians, is, that 
for 60 years after the articles were settled, only four or five anti- 
Calvinistic divines appeared, in both Universities, and the whole 
nation ; that out of this number three were actually punished for 
propagating their opinions ; and that the rest only saved themselves 
by silence, and discretion!! 

The celebrated Hooker would have abhorred the thought of 
joining with Dr. Bowden and Mr. How in their aspersions of Cal- 
vin. That truly great man, with all his episcopal prejudices, 
speaking of the reformer of Geneva, i\\ns expresses himself. ^^ I 
" think him the wisest man that ever the French church did enjoy, 
" since the hour it enjoyed him. His bringing up was in the study 
" of the civil law. Divine knowledge he gathered, not by hearing 
<^ or reading, so much as by teaching others. For though thousands 
" were debtors to him, as touching knowledge in that kind ; yet he 
" to none, but only to God, the author of that most blessed foun- 
" tain, the book of life ; and of the admirable dexterity of wit, 
" together with the helps of other learning, which were his guides.^' 
In another place. Hooker speaks of Calvin as *^ a worthy vessel 

* SeeHeylin's Quinq. Hist. Works, p. 626, &c. See also his Life of 
Laud, 147. 
f See Overton's True Churchman, p. 81, 82, 83. 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 413 

of God's glory." And again he remarks, " Two things of prin- 
cipal moment there are, which have deservedly procured him Ao- 
" nour throughout the world; the one his exceeding pains in com- 
" posing the Institutions of Christian Religion; the other, his no 
" less industrious travails for exposition of Holy Scripture accord- 
" ing unto the same institutions. ''* 

Bishop Carleton in his Examination of Montague's Appealy 
printed in 1626, and dedicated to Charles I. says, p. 97- " As 
'< for Calvin, his name and doctrines are made odious ; but why, I 
" know not. What greater pleasure can a man procure to the 
" enemies of the truth, than to speak evil and odiously of those 
"men whose service God hath used, and made them excellent 
" instruments to make the truth known unto us ? Some take it for 
" a sign looking toward popej-y, when the members of our own 
" Church offer such a service to the papists, as to speak evil of them 
" that have been the greatest enemies of poper}^, the greatest pro- 
** pagators of the truth.'^ 

Dr. Hakewell, chaplain of Charles T. while Prince of Wales, in 
a work adressed to Dr. Carier, a papist, says, p. 135. " One of 
" the main points you drive at is, to put us off from all fellowship, 
" and communion with those Churches who acknowledge Calvin 
" to have been an excellent instrument of God, in abolishing and 
" suppressing of popery, and the clearing and spreading of his 
" tridh; that so, being separated from them, we may either stand 
" single, and be encountered alone, or return again to our old bias, 
" and relapse unto Rome ; and so through Calvinh- sides, you strike 
" at the throat and heart of our religion." 

Dr. Joshua Hoy I, Professor of Divinity in Trinity College, 
Dublin, in the reign of Charles I. in his Rejoinder to Mr. Malone^s 
Reply on the Real Presence, dedicated to Archbishop Usher, in p. 
654, &c. says — " That great instrument of God's glory, John 
Calvin, a man of whom I had almost said, as once it was o( Moses, 
there arose not a prophet since like him in Israel, nor since the 
apostles' days was before him — His works shall praise him for wit, 
eloquence, fulness, and soundness of divinity. ^^ 

On this part of the subject I shall content myself with one wit- 
ness more. A clergymen of the church of England, now living, 

* Preface to his Ecclesiaslical Polity. 



414 LETTER VII. 

who writes in the Christian Observer, in speaking of the disposi- 
tion of many in his own Church, to vilify the name and opinions 
of Calvin, makes the following remarks. — " Few names stand 
" higher or in more deserved pre-eminence, amongst the wise and 
"pious members of the English Church, than that of bishop y^w- 
" dreios. His testimony to the memory of Calvin is, that he was 
" * an illustrious person, and never to be mentioned without a pre- 
" face of the highest honour. ' Whoever examines into the sermons, 
" writings, &c. of our divines, in the reign of Elizabeth, and James 
" I. will continually meet with epithets of honour with which his 
" iiame is mentioned ; the learned, the wise, thejudicious, the pious 
" Calvin, are expressions every where to be found in the remains 
" of those times. It is well known that his Institutes were read 
" a7id studied in the Universities, hy every student in divinity, 
" for a considerable portion of a century ; nay, that by a Convoca- 
" tion held at Oxford, that book was recommended to the general 
^^ study of the nation. So far was the Church of England, ?iYid 
^ her chief divines from countenancing that unbecoming and absurd 
" treatment, with which the name of this eminent protestant is now 
" so frequently dishonoured, that it would be no difficult matter to 
" prove, that there is not, perhaps, a parallel instance upon record, 
" of any single individual being equally and so unequivocally vene- 
'^ rated, for the union of wisdom and piety, both in England, and 
" by a large body of the foreign Churches, as John Calvin. No- 
" thing but ignorance of the ecclesiastical records of those times, 
" or resolute prejudice, could cast a cloak of concealment over this 
" fact. It has been evidenced, by the combined testimony both of 
"enemies and friends to his system of doctrines."* 

Dr. Boivden, not content with aspersing the opinions of Calvin, 
goes further, and attacks, with great apparent cordiality, h\s per- 
sonal character. Besides a number of reproachful epithets, which 
the Dr. throws out in various parts of his work, the following pas- 
sage occurs towards the close. Letter 20. " The return of Calvin 
" evinced the gentle sway of presbytery. Castellio, (he probably 
" means Castalio,) a man of great learning, was soon expelled, at 
"the instigation of the reformer. A violent contest then took 
" place between him and the Senate, about the election of a minis- 

* Christian Observer, Vol. II. p. 143. 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 415 

" ter. It produced almost sedition. Calvin's quarrels with Peri- 
" nus proceeded to such a length that the council became furious 
" against one another. And what do you think was the cause of 
" it ? Why Pennws thought it no harm to recreate himself now and 
« then with dancing. But Calvin, ahhough no bishop, played the 
" tyrant, and forbad that amusement upon pain of excommunica- 
" tion. Perinus was not to be treated in that manner. He op- 
" posed such tyranny ; and two of the ministers who joined with 
"him, were turned out of their livings. The contention became 
" general throughout the city, and the council, taking different 
"sides, almost cut one another's throats. One person was put to 
" death for libelling Calvin. Another was banished the city for 
"for preaching against predestination. Serveius was burned for 
" heresy. So much for the mother church of Prebytery." 

It is easy, in half a line, to convey a slander which it would 
require several pages to expose. I cannot help regretting that Dr. 
Bowden has permitted himself to believe and to retail all the un- 
founded charges against Calvin, which were first propagated by 
malice, and which ignorance and prejudice have, ever since, con- 
tinued to repeat. It is impossible here to enter into a full refuta- 
tion of these charges. I can only suggest a few hints for aiding 
those who have a disposition further to pursue the inquiry. 

With respect to the case of Castalio, it is thus related by M. 
Sennebier, one of the most respectable biographers of Calvin, and 
whose testimony is entitled to the more credit, as he was an oppo^ 
nent of that reformer's religious principles. " Calvinknew Casta" 
" lio, at Strashurg, in 1539. He procured for him the place of re- 
" gent in Geneva, in 1543. This man, who was a good humanist, 
" but an extravagant theologian, translated the Bible into Latin. 
" He endeavoured to make the Hebrews speak the language of 
" Cicero ; and even essayed to make them sometimes sigh the ten- 
" der verses of Ovid. On this account Calvin strongly blamed his 
" version, together with different sentiments which this singular 
" man did not fear to advance. Castalio, feeling hurt, demanded 
" of the council permission to dispute 'publicly with Calvin on 
"the descent of Jesus Christ into hell. They refused him this 
" permission. But from love to truth, and from regard to liberty 
" of thought, they permitted him to open this dispute before the 
" assembly of ministers. It continued a long time without any 



416 LETTER VII. 

" success. Castalio was so irritated, that he attacked Calvin in 
" a sermon destined to resolve the objections that could be opposed 
^* to the doctrine which he had taught 5 and he so grossly insulted 
*^ the ministers of Geneva, that the council deposed him from the 
" holy ministry, and took from him the place of Regent. Cas- 
" talio retired to Basil, where he persisted in his extraordinary 
" sentiments, aud his hatred of Calvin, until his death."* 

The conduct of Calvin, in the case of Perrin, is thus stated, by 
the same writer. " Calvin, in the exercise of discipline, saw only 
" the man who had violated his duties, in the man in office, who 
" had believed that he might be dispensed from them. He caused 
" to be cited before the consistory the wife of the Captain-Gene- 
" eral. Ami Perrin who had danced, acted in a comedy, and hlas- 
"2^/iemec? in a particular house. Ami Perrin himself, whose life 
" was very irregular, was excommunicated, deprived of his office 
" of counsellor, and condemned two months, imprisonment. But, 
*^ though this man had always instigated the enemies of Calvin, 
" though he had caused all the difficulties that Calvin experienced 
" at Geneva from the government ; Calvin, nevertheless, employ- 
" ed his eloquence and his influence to cause the judgment against 
" him to be annulled 5 and had the christian satisfaction of seeing 
" his mortal enemy restored to his offices, and delivered from 
" prison."t 

" One person," says Dr. B. " was put to death for libelling 
Calvin J^ This wonderful assertion refers to the case of James 
Gruet, who was beheaded Jw/y 26, 1547". He was a man notorious 
for his vice and profligacy — He, of course, hated Calvin, and 
abused him in the most violent manner. But this was not the 
cause of his death. In his sentence he is condemned, " for having 
" spoken with contempt of religion ; for having maintained that 
" divine and human laws were the work of caprice ; for having 
" written impious letters, and libertine verses j for having main- 
" tained ihat fornication was not criminal, when the two parties 
" were agreed ; for having laboured to overturn ecclesiastical ordi- 
" nances, and to shake by a petition the authority of the consisto- 
" ry ; for having threatened the reformers and ministers, and hav- 

• Sennebier's Histoire Literaire de Geneve, Tom, i. p. 196, 197. 
t Senneb, Lit. Hist. i. 200. 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 417 

" ing spoken ill of them, especially of Calvin ; for having written 
" letters calculated to irritate the court of France against Calvin, 
" and having engaged the King of France to write to the council 
" against him ; and, finally, for having threatened the council 
" itself."* — Do you not admire the candour and impartiality of 
" Doctor Bowden ? 

The Doctor proceeds — " Another was banished the city for 
preaching against predestination." This was the noted Jerome 
BolseCy of whom Dr. Watkins, an episcopal clergyman, in his 
Biographical Dictionary, gives the following account : " He was 
" an infamous renegado, who, from being a Carmelite, turned 
" protestant, practised for some time as a physician, and married. 
" He went to Geneva, and abandoned physic for theology ; but 
" having avowed the doctrines oi Pelagius in a public discourse, 
" which was answered by Calvin on the spot, the magistrates, on 
" account of his turbulent conduct, banished him from the city: 
" on which he retired to Berne, where he raised a great deal of 
" disturbance, and was then driven from that ciiy. He returned 
" after this to France, and went back to his old communion (that 
" of Rome ;) and, by way of showing the sincerity of his conversion, 
" wrote what he called the Lives of Theodore Beza, and John 
" Calvin, filled with the blackest falsehoods, and expressed in the 
" most abusive language. He lived in a profligate manner, and suf- 
" fered his wife to prostitute herself for gain." Sennebier also in- 
forms us that Bolsec, having adopted the sentiments of Pelagius, 
came to publish them at Geneva as a missionary. He was censured 
by the ministers, and banished by the council, after useless attempts 
to silence him. — This is the man whose part Doctor jBoe^^t/e??, more 
than once, indirectly takes, for the purpose of blackening the char- 
acter of the venerable Calvin ! 

The case of Servetus, which has furnished to the revilers of Cal- 
vin a favourite theme of declamation, for near two hundred years. 
Dr. Bowden could not have been expected either to forget, or to 
pass in silence. He has noticed it in the usual style 5 and charged 
it to the " tyrannical spirit" of Calvin, and the " gentle sway of 
presbytery." On this accusation I will only ofifer the following 
remarks. 

* Lit. Hist. I. 202. 
3 G 



41 S LETTER VII. 

First ; it has never been shown that the death of Servetus can 
be justly imputed to Calvin. Sennebier, though no Calvinist, 
assures us that the imputation is a cruel calumny 5 that the bitter- 
est enemies of Calvin, who were contemporary with him, did not 
dare to advance it ; and that it has been since repeated and believed, 
only by those who were ignorant of facts. He declares that 
Calvin, so far from desirin^j the,death of this arch-heretic, was anx- 
ious to prevent it ; that he warned him against coming to Geneva, 
and apprized him, that if he did come thither, he would probably 
lose his life; which he concluded must be the case from the spirit 
ofthe laws and government of that city. This writer further as- 
serts, that the council of Geneva, before passing sentence on Ser- 
vetus, asked the advice ofthe Swiss cantons, who unanimously ex- 
horted them to put him to death. And, finally, he informs us, 
that after sentence had been passed on Servetus, Calvin laboured 
to procure a mitigation of it, but without effect ; and that he sin- 
cerely deplored his fate.* If this statement be true, and the au- 
thor supports it by a reference to undoubted authorities; then the 
representation of Dr. Boivden, or rather of those revilers of 
Calvin whom he has followed, is something worse than ungene- 
rous. 

But, Secondly ; supposing the fact to be as Dr. Bowden insinu- 
ates. Supposing it established that Calvin fully approved, and 
even procured the death of Servetus ; still it was evidently not so 
much the fault of the man, as the universal delusion ofthe age in 
which he lived ; an age in which liberty of conscience was not at 
all, either understood or admitted, by any denomination of Chris- 
tians; and in which the most pious, benevolent, and exemplary 
men were more or less chargeable with error on this point. It is 
certain that Bucer, Oecolampadius, Beza, and even the mild and 
gentle Melancthon, approved the sentence that was executed on 
Servetus.f It is certain that Archbishop Cranmer, and the great 
body ofthe English reformers, were decidedly ofthe opinion that 
he ought to have suffered death."| And it is equally undeniable, 
that the pious and excellent Bishop Hall, solemnly pronounced, 

" Lit. Hist, de Geneve^ Tom. i. p. 204, &,c. 

f Sennehier. Also Melanctkoa^s Epistles. 

\ See History of Popery, Lend. 4to. Vol. 11. p. 352. 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 419 

that, in that transaction, Calvin did well approve himself to 
God's Church.* To reproach Calvin, therefore, for not possess- 
ing that light which no man of his age possessed ; to attempt to 
fix a stigma upon his memory for an error into which he fell in 
common with all the best of his contemporaries, is certainly as un- 
reasonable as it is unjust. 

But, Jinalli/ ; why do Dr. Bowden and his friends take so much 
delight in reproaching Calvin for a single supposed instance of 
persecution ? And why do they lake so much pains to make it be- 
lieved that the death of Servetus was the native product of the 
" spirit of Presbyterianism ?" Have these gentlemen forgotten the 
history of the Church of England? Or do they suppose that zi;e 
have forgotten it ? Have they lost all recollection of the conduct of 
their boasted favourites, Archbishops Cranmer, Whitgifl, and 
Laudf to say nothing of other eminent dignitaries of that church? 
Or do they imagine that our memories are as politely accommodat- 
ing as their own ? Calvin is only charged with bringing one un- 
happy victim to the stake ; and even this is a false charge. But it 
is acknowledged, even by episcopal historians themselves, that the 
pious and excellent Cranmer, was active in dragging at least/owr 
persons to the flames, of whom two were women. In the reign of 
Henry VIII. the archbishop is expressly said, by Strype and Bur- 
net, to have been concerned in burning John Lambert, and Anne 
Askew, for those very principles which he himself afterwards era- 
braced.t And in the reign oi Edward VI. he is confessed, by the 
same historians, to have " procured the death," (as one of them ex- 
presses it, ) o( Joanna Boclier, and George Paris. The King was 
opposed to the execution of these persons, and signed the warrants 
for their execution with tears in his eyes, telling Cranmer that he 
did it in compliance with his persuasion, and in submission to his 
ecclesiastical authority ; and that if it was wrong, he, (the archbi- 
shop,) must answer for it to God.J In this representation, the 
episcopal biographer, Mr. Gilpin, in his Lives of the Reformers^ 
concurs. " Joan Bocher,'^ says he, " and George Paris were 

♦See his Christian Moderation^ Book II. Sect. 14. WorJcSy Vol. III. p. 50. 
f Cranmer's Memorials^ Book. i. chap. 17. p. 65. Bishop Burnet's 
Histor^j of the Reformation, Vol. ii. p. 112. 
+ Hist. Ref II. 112. 



420 LETTER VJI. 

" accused, one for denying the humanity of Christ ; the other for 
" denying his divinity. They were both tried and condemned to 
" the stake ; and the archbishop not only consented to these acts of 
*^ blood but even persuaded the aversion of the young king into a 
" compliance. Your majesty must distinguish, (said he, informing 
" his royal pupil's conscience,) between common opinions, and such 
" as are the essential articles of faith. These latter we must, on 
" no account, suffer to be opposed."* 

But it is gratifying to know, that Presbyterians, instead of 
delighting to load Cranmer with reproach, for these instances of 
caisguided zeal, have always treated his memory with a respectful 
generosity. They have seldom failed to charge this part of his 
conduct to the delusion of the age, and not to the heart of the 
man ; and have been ready to acknowledge, in the strongest terms, 
his excellent qualities, and his noble services to the church of 
Christ. And it is but justice to add, that the bishops and other 
leading divines of England, who were contemporary with Calvin, 
or who lived half a century after him, always treated his character 
with similar respect and affection, nor ever lisped a syllable in the 
strain of Dr. Bowden. To what are we to ascribe the different re- 
presentation which is now so fashionable, and so industriously 
propagated among our episcopal brethren? How shall we account 
for it, that gentlemen who abound in unqualified praises of Cran- 
mer, and even of Laud, are not ashamed continually to reproach 
the memory of Calvin, with conduct in which they went far beyond 
him ? Can charity herself avoid suspecting, that it is the man him- 
self who is hated, more than his alleged persecuting spirit ? 

Dr. Bowden and Mr. How both throw out many reflections on 
that system of doctrine which is generally called Calvinism, The 
latter, in particular, speaks of it as a " detestable" system, of 
which he has no language adequately to express his *' abhorrence." 
It was my original intention to devote a whole letter to the consi- 
deration of this greatly misunderstood and abused system of truth. 
But having been already carried so much beyond the limits at first 
prescribed to this reply, I dare not so far trespass on your patience, 
as to enter into the formal discussion of a subject which has engaged 

* 7%e Lives of Reformers, By William Gilpin, M. A. Vol. ii. p. 99. 



TESTIMONY OP CALVIN. 421 

the attention of the strongest heads and best hearts that the world 
ever knew ; and a subject as awful and difficult as it is interesting, 

I cannot forbear, however to state a few facts. And when these 
are calmly considered, I think your surprise at the conduct of these 
gentlemen will by no means be diminished. 

The Thirty-nine Articles of the church of England are un 
doubtedly Calvinistic. This is proved not only by the bare 
inspection of the articles themselves; but also by the known sentie 
ments of those who formed them ; and by the decisive interpreta- 
tion of some of the ablest bishops, and other divines, that ever 
adorned that church.* 

The same Convocation which drew up the thirty-nine articles, 
reviewed, corrected, formally approved, and ordeied to be pub- 
lished, as it now stands, the celebrated Catechism of Dr. NowelL 
This Catechism is acknowledged, by the worst enemies of Calvin, 
to be decidedly Calvinistic. It is acknowledged to be so by Bishop 
Cleaver, who, a i^w years ago, gave a new edition of it. And yet 
the Convocation, which embraced all the principal dignitaries of 
the church, publicly recommended it, as " a standing summary of 
the doctrines professed in that church;" and many years after it 
was held in such high esteem, by Archbishops Whitgift and Far- 
ker, and other cotemporary prelates, that even ministers were 
enjoined to study it, that they might " learn true divinity from it."t 

The illustrious reformer and martyr, Bradford, a short time 
before he suffered, wrote and published a decidedly Calvinistic 
work on election and predestination, which he sent to Arcbishop 
Cranmer, and to Bishops Ridley and Latimer, who all gave it 
their approbation; after which it received the approbation of 
" the rest of the eminent ministers in and about London.'^X 

* See Overton's True Churchman, passim. 1 know that this writer has 
made some mistakes. But when his work is compared with the able 
Review of it in the Christian Observer, an episcopal journal ; and also 
with Mr. JDaubeny's answer, and the review of the latter in the same 
journal, the mass of evidence in support of my position will be found 
irresistible. 

f Strype's Annals, 313--316. Life of Parker, 122. 301. 

\ Sirype's Memorials of Cranmer, p. 350. The editors of the Christian 
Observer attest that they have seen Bradford's treatise; and that it is 
unquestionably Calvinistic. 



/ 

422 LETTER VII. 

The famous Lambeth articles, formed in the reign of Queen 
Elizabeth, are acknowledged by all who ever read them, to be 
among the most strongly Calvinistical compositions that ever 
were penned. Yet these articles were drawn up and signed by 
Archbishop Whitgift, that very prelate of whose character and 
principles Dr. Hobart frequently speaks in the most exalted terms, 
and whom he holds up to view as one of the most illustrious di- 
vines and fathers of the church o( England.— The Archbishop was 
assisted in this service by the bishops of London and Bangor, and 
b}' some others. After receiving the public approbation of these 
dignataries, the articles were sent to the archbishop of York, and 
the bishop of Rochester, who also subscribed them. Thus ratified, 
Archbishop Whitgift sent them to the University of Cambridge, 
with a letter, in which he declared, " That these articles were not 
'^ to be considered as laws and decrees, but as propositions, which 
" he and his brethren were persuaded were true, and corresponding 
" loith the doctrine professed in the Church of England, and 
" established by the laws of the land."* Nor is this all. It having 
been suggested by some, that the archbishop agreed to these arti- 
cles, rather for the sake of peace, than because he believed them ; 
Strype, his episcopal biographer, repels the charge with indigna- 
tion ; declaring that such an insinuation is as false, as it is mean 
and disparaging to the priraate.t 

We have seen also, in a foregoing part of this letter, by the con- 
fession ofHeylin himself, an implacable enemy of Calvin, that the 
great body of the bishops, and other clergy of the Church of Eng- 
land, were doctrinal Calvinists, for more than half a century after 
the articles were formed. And we have found a modern episcopal 
clergyman asserting, on undeniable evidence, that " Calvin's Insti- 
" tutions were read and studied, in both the Universities, by every 
" student in divinity, for a considerable portion of a century ; nay, 
" that by a convocation held at Oxford, that book was recom- 
" mended to the general study of the nation." 

All the delegates from the Church of England to the synod of 
Dort, among whom were Bishop Carleton, Bishop Hall, and Bi- 
shop Davenant, formally subscribed to the five Calvinistic articles 
drawn up and adopted by that venerable synod. On their return 

* Stnjpe's Life of Whitgift, p. 461—463. t Ibid- p. 462. 



TESTIMONY ,0F CALVIN. 423 

return home, they were attacked by a certain writer, and charged 
with having given countenance to error, and also with having de- 
parted from the public standards of their own church. Against 
this attack they thought proper to defend themselves, and accord- 
ingly wrote a joint attestation, which contains the following pas- 
sage. " Whatsoever there was assented unto, and subscribed by 
« us, concerning the Jive articles, either in the joint sy nodical 
" judgment, or in our particular collegiate suffrage, is not only 
" warrantable by the Holy Scriptures, but also conformable to the 
" received doclrine of our said venerable mother ; which we are 
" ready to maintain and justify against all gainsayers."* 

Again, Bishop Hall, in a work of his own, addressing some who 
had charged him and other bishops of his day, with entertaining 
Arminian sentiments as to the doctrine of election, thus indignant- 
ly replies to the charge — " You add ^ election uyon faith foreseen.^ 
" What ! nothing but gross untruths? Is this the doctrine of the bi- 
" shops of England ? Have they not strongly confuted it in^a- 
" yists and Arminians ?f Have they not cried it down to the 

LOWEST PIT OP HELL r"J 

The same pious prelate himself tells us, that, after his return 
from the synod of Dort, where he had been an advocate of Calvin- 
istic doctrine, and a warm opponent of Arminianism, he was dis- 
tressed to find that heresy gaining ground in England, " Not 
^^ many years," says he, " after settling at home, it grieved my 
" soul to see our own church begin to sicken of the same disease, 
" which we had endeavoured to cure in our neighbours. "§ 

If all this be not conclusive testimony, that the thirty-nine arti- 

cles, w hich Mr. How has recently subscribed are Calvinistic; that 

the reformers were Calvinistic ; and that the great body of the 

English bishops and other clergy, were Calvinistic until the time 

of Archbishop Laud, then I know not what evidence can be called 

* Seeihelr Joint £tiestation. 

t It seems, then, that Bishop Hall was not only a Calvinist himself; but 
that he considered the body of English bishops, until his time, as having 
been Calvinists also. But perhaps Dr. Bowden and Mr. How understand 
this matter better than the good bishop ! 

:}: Defence of the Humble Remonstrance. Works. Vol. III. 246. 

§ Some Specialities of the Life of Joseph Hally BisJiop ofNorwichy writ- 
ten by himself. — Prefixed to the 3d vol. of his Works. 



424 LETTER VII. 

conclusive. And yet, Mr. How, with the highest praises of those 
articles, and reformers, and prelates, and clergy, in his mouth, does 
not scruple to speak of Calvinism in language which could scarcely 
be more contemptuous, or more abhorrent, if it were acknow- 
ledged to be a system of the most undisguised blasphemy ! I 
am happy that it is not incumbent on me, either to account for this 
fact, or to frame an apology for it. 

But you will, perhaps, ask are there no difficulties to be en- 
countered in embracing that system of evangelical truth, which is 
usually styled Calvinism ? It ought not to be disguised that there 
are in this system real difficulties, which, probably, no human wis- 
dom will ever be able to solve. But are the difficulties which 
belong to the system of Arminianism, either yeM?er in number, or 
less in magnitude ? Instead of this, they are more numerous, and 
more serious 5 more contradictory to reason, more inconsistent with 
the character of God, and more directly opposed both to the letter 
and the spirit of his word. I rest in the Calvinistic system, with 
a confidence daily increasing, not only because the more I examine 
it, the more clearly it appears to me to be taught in the Holy 
Scriptures ; but also because, the more frequently and the more 
carefully I compare the amount of the difficulties, on both sides, 
the more heavily they seem to me to press against the Arminian 
doctrine. 

It is easy and popular to object, that Calvinism has a tendency 
to cut the nerves of all spiritual exertion ; that, if we are elected 
there is no need of exertion, and if not elected, it will be in vain. 
But this objection lies with quite as much force against the Arminian 
hypothesis. Dr. Bowden, and Mr. How, and all Arminians, 
though they reject the doctrine of election, explicitly grant that, 
while some will, in fact, be saved, others will, in fact, as certainly 
perish. Now it is perfectly plain that this position is just as liable 
to the abuse above stated, as the Calvinistic doctrine. For a man 
may say, " I shall either be saved, or I shall not. If I am to be 
" saved, no anxiety about it is necessary ; and if I am to perish, all 
" anxiety about it will be useless." Would these gentlemen con- 
sider this objection as a valid one against their creed? I presume 
not. But it has no more validily against ours. Another objection 
is equally common and popular. It is said, if none but the elect 
will be saved, how can God be considered as sincere in making the 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 425 

offers of mercy to all? The Arminian is just as much bound to 
answer this question as the Calvinist. He grants that all men will 
not, in fact, be saved ; he grants, moreover, that God foreknew this 
from eternity 5 and that he not only foreknew the general fact ; 
but also the particular persons who will, and who will not, par- 
take of salvation. How, then, we may ask the Arminian^ is God 
sincere, on his plan, in urging and entreating all to accept of mer- 
cy ? Again, it has been frequently asked, " If none but the elect 
will be saved, is not God a partial master, and a respecter of 
persons ?" But it may be quite as plausibly and confidently 
asked, " How can we reconcile it with the impartiality and the 
benevolence of God, to sat-eonlya part of mankind ?" If salvation 
be his work, then, why does he not save all ? Why does he make 
a distinction ? And if it henot his work, then men save themselves. 
Will even Mr. How, with all his inveteracy against Calvinism, go 
this length ? 

But while all the objections which our Arminian brethren urge 
against Calvinism, he with full as much force against their own 
system ; there are others, of a still more serious nature, to which 
that system is liable, and which, if I were compelled to admit, 
would plunge me into darkness and despair. 

Yes, my brethren, if I could bring myself to believe, that the infi- 
nite and eternal God has laid no plan in the kingdom of his grace, 
but has left all to be decided by chance, or accident, not knowing 
the end from the beginning — If I could believe that the purposes 
of Jehovah, instead of being eternal, are all formed in time; and 
instead of being immutable, are all liable to be altered by the chang 
ing will of his creatures — If I could suppose that, after all the Re- 
deemer has done and suffered, the work of redemption cannot be 
completed, unless perishing mortals choose to lend their arm to its 
aid — If I could admit the idea, that God has done nothing more 
than decree, in general, to save all who may happen to believe ; 
without any determination, or, which is the same thing, without 
any certainty, whether few, or many^ or none, would be thus 
blessed — If I could suppose that God foresaw events as certainly 
future, which he had not unchangeably determined to accomplish, 
and which, therefore, might never happen — If I could suppose that 
the omniscient Saviour died with a distinct purpose and design to 
3 H 



426 LETTER VIl. 

save all men alike, while it is certain that all will not be saved 
— If I could embrace the opinion that real Christians are no more 
indebted to grace than others, having received no more than they 5 
and that what makes them to differ from others is, not the sovereign 
goodness of God, but their own superior wisdom, strength, or merit , 
in other words, that they make themselves to differ — If I could ad- 
mit the dreadful thought, that the Christian's continuance in his 
journey heavenward, depends, not on the immutable /oz;e andpro- 
mise of his God ; but on the firmness of his own strength, and the 
stability of his own resolutions ; and, of course, that he who is the 
most eminent saint to-day, may become a child of wrath, and an 
heir of perdition to-morrow — In short, if I could conceive of God 
as working without any providential design, and willing without 
any ceftain effect ; desiring to save man, yet unable to save him, 
and often disappointed in his expectations ; doing as much, and 
designing as much, for those that perish, as for those that are saved ; 
but after all baffled in his wishes concerning them ; hoping and de- 
siring great things, but certain of nothing, because he had deter- 
mined on nothing — If I could believe these things, then, indeed, I 
should renounce Calvinism ; but it would not be to embrace the 
system of Arminius. Alas ! it would be impossible to stop here. 
I must consider the character of God as dishonoured ; his coun- 
sels as degraded to a chaos of wishes and endeavours ; his promises 
as the fallible and uncertain declarations of circumscribed know- 
ledge and endless doubt ; the best hopes of the Christian as liable 
every hour to be blasted ; and the whole plan of salvation as no- 
thing better than a gloomy'system of possibilities and peradven- 
tures ; a system on the whole, nearly, if not quite, as likely to 
land the believer in the abyss of the damned, as in the paradise of 
God. 

But, while I verily believe all these shocking consequences 
to flow, unavoidably, from the rejection of Calvinism ; while 
the Arminian doctrine appears to me inconsistent with itselfj 
dishonourable to God ; and comfortless to man ; yet I dare not 
bring a railing accusation against those who embrace this doc- 
trine; I dare not impute to them the consequences which have 
been stated. They neither acknowledge nor perceive them ; and if 



TESTIMONY OF CALVIN. 427 

they did, would, no doubt, be as ready to abhor them as ourselves. 
Nor can I cease to cherish the animating belief, as well as to 
offer the fervent prayer, that thousands who now reject, in words, 
the doctrines of Calvinism, and entertain invincible prejudices 
against the system which is generally called by that name ; may, 
notwithstanding, for ever rejoice in these doctrines, and bless 
God for them in a more enlightened, and a more happy world. 



( 428 ) 



LETTER VIII. 



TESTIMONY OF THE SUCCESSORS OF THE REFORMERS. 



CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

By the successors of the reformers^ I mean those great and good 
men who adorned the protestant churches, and took the lead in the 
direction of their affairs, for sixty or seventy years after the estab- 
lishment of the reformation. Some of these excellent men have 
been quoted by our episcopal brethren as witnesses in their favour; 
especially some of the greatest ornaments of the Dutch and French 
churches. Mr. How speaks with confidence of their testimony, 
as decisively favourable to his system ; and Dr. Bowden, by refer- 
ing, with approbation, to what Dr. Hohart has advanced on this 
part of the controversy, virtually speaks the same language. 

These gentlemen, in giving this representation, surely count 
largely on the ignorance of their readers. For although, if one 
might believe Durell, and other collectors and perverters of scraps 
from the writers in question, they sometimes speak like believers 
in the apostolic institution of prelacy ; yet when we come to pe- 
ruse their works, and especially to examine the passages in which 
they formally deliver their opinion on this subject, we shall find 
them, almost with one voice, speaking a language directly opposite 
to that which is ascribed to them. 

The truth is, when the nonconformists in England, after the 
establishment of the reformation, began to revolt from the episco- 
pal hierarchy,and to oppose its unscriptural pretensions, a number 
of the bishop, and other divines of the established church in that 



SUCCESSORS OF THE REFORMERS. 429 

country, wrote to some of the most eminent Presbyterian divines 
of tlie foreign reformed ciiurches, soliciting their influence, and the 
authority of their names, to quiet the minds of the discontented. 
In answer to solicitations of this kind, some of the foreign divines 
wrote letters, in which they spoke politely and respectfully of the 
church of England; and plainly expressed an opinion that the 
nonconformists ought not to make the point of church government 
a cause of separation. Still, however, these men were Presbyte- 
rians in principle ; they had solemnly subscribed Confessions of 
Faith, which declared ministerial parity to be the doctrine of 
scripture, and the practice of the primitive church ; and when 
they came to discuss and decide the question concerning prelacy, 
they spoke a language corresponding with their creed. And I 
venture to add, that for everi/ concession in favour of prelacy, 
which my opponents produce from the French, Dutch, Swiss, and 
German divines, who succeeded to the reformers, any man of 
reading might safely engage to produce ten, more pointed conces- 
sions from divines of the church of England, in favour of Presby- 
terianism. 

It would be perfectly easy to fill a volume with quotations in 
proof of what has been advanced. The following selection will be 
sufficient to answer my purpose. It will be clearly seen, that, as 
the great body of the reformers never offered the plea of necessity 
for establishing Presbyterian parity ; but steadily appealed to the 
word of God, and primitive usage as their warrant ; so the great 
and excellent men who came after them, with scarcely any 
important exception, took the same ground, and made the same 
appeal. 

The learned Le Blanc, a French protestant divine of great 
eminence who flourished in the age immediately succeeding that of 
the reformation, says, " It is the most general opinion of the 
^^ English, i\\?iX episcopacy and presbytery, are distinct offices; 
" but the rest of the reformed, as also those of the Augustan 
" Confession, (the Lutherans^ do unanimously believe that there 
" is no such distinction by divine right ; and that the superiority 
" of bishops above presbyters is only of ecclesiastical right, and 
" has been introduced into the church hy degrees. In the ages 
" after the apostles, a custom was introduced, that one of the 
" presbyters should be chosen, by the votes of the whole college, 



430 LETTER VIII. 

" to preside over the other presbyters ; and these, after a while, 
" assumed to themselves the name of bishops, and, by degrees, 
" gained more and more prerogatives, and brought their colleagues 
" into subjection to them, until, at length, the matter grew up to 
" that tyranny which now obtains in the church of BomeJ^* 

The very learned Chamier, a French protestant divine of great 
distinction, contemporary with Beza, has been sometimes quoted 
by Episcopalians, as making concessions in favour of their cause — 
The following quotation will show his opinion of ministerial impa- 
rity. " Prelacy was not, by those who first began it, judged to be 
" absolutely/ better than presbytery ; but only in a certain respect. 
" Upon the same account we may likewise say, that equality 
" among pastors is better in a certain respect, viz. for the avoid- 
" ing of the tyranny of a few over the rest of their brethren, yea, of 
*' one over all. And how great an evil tyranny is, and how wide 
" a gate was opened to it from the ambition for this presidency, 
" experience hath, long since, more than sufficiently shown.^t In 
another part of the same work, he speaks still' more strongly — 
" There is no one who doubts that this custom of giving one pres- 
" byter a presidency over the rest, was introduced by good men, 
" and upon a good design. Would to God that it had not rather 
" arisen from carnal prudence, than from the direction of the 
" Spirit ! Would to God it had been attended with as happy and 
" prosperous success, as it was introduced with applause."| In the 
next chapter, after having shown at large how episcopacy intro- 
duced the papacy, he closes the account with the following remark: 
" Thus human wisdom, if once it decline but a jot from the 
" original truth, becomes worse and worse."§ 

M. Danau, a every eminent divine of the French protestant 
church, also contemporary with Beza, treating of the subject under 
consideration, thus writes. " So long as the apostolic constitution 
" continued in the church, the presbyters that laboured in the word 
" and doctrine differed not at all from bishops. But after that, 
" by the ambition of those who presided over other presbyters, 

* Thes. de Grad. Minist. 

t Pamtrat. Tom. ii. Lib. 9. Cap. 14. § 11. 

:|: Panstrat. Lib. 10. Cap. 5. § 22. 

§ Ibid. Cap. 6. § 18. 



SUCCESSORS OF THE REFORMERS. 431 

" and took to themselves the name of bishops, the apostolic form 
" and discipline was abolished ; then the bishops began to be dis- 
" tinguished even from those presbyters that preached the word ; 
" and to these bishops, contrary to God's wordj the whole dignity 
" was ascribed 5 scarcely any part thereof being left to the presby- 
" ters ; which thing, and the ambition of the bishops, did in time 
" ruin the whole church, as the fact of the papacy itself proclaims : 
" And so the apostolic episcopacy was abolished, and a human 
" episcopacy began, from which sprang the satanic episcopacy, as 
" it now is in the papacy. — The distinction of a bishop from a 
" preaching presbyter is juris pontificii, of pontifician and positive 
" right, being brought in after the foundations of the tyranny of the 
" bishops were laid ; but is not of divine right."* 

The celebrated Bocharty a French protestant divine of great 
learning and authority, has often been quoted by episcopal writers, 
as having expressed himself in favouir of prelacy. The following 
declarations from his pen are found in a letter which he wrote to 
Dr. Morley^ an English bishop, who had requested his opinion on 
the subject. " In the office of Overseer or hishop, there are three 
^' things which we must not mix together, — the ^^srf/SuTS^jov, i. e. 
" the eldership or pastoral oSicCy which scripture ascribes to the 
" overseer or bishop ; — the u'^rs^o^^^jv, i. e. the pre-eminence above 
" other pastors, which the ancient church added to the bishops 5 
" and the lordship over God's heritage which some in these last 
" times have strenuously advocated. The Jirst of these is of 
" divine authority , the second oi ecclesiastical authority ; and the 
" third of neither, but a mere abuse. The Jirst, the church cannot 
" dispense with ; the second may be borne ; but the third ought 
". at once to be rooted out J' — In answer to Bishop Morley^s ques- 
tion, whether it was better for the English church to be governed 
" by presbyters than by bishops, Bochart replies — " The episco- 
'^ pal government was not of divine, but ecclesiastical appoint- 
<^ ment ; but since the English church has hitherto been governed 
" by bishops, that form of government may and can with propriety 
" be borne. For every where men live ; but men cannot live every 
" where in the same way. As in political society some prefer 
" Ijeing governed by one, and others by many ; so it is in ecciesi- 

* Dan^i. Conirov, 5. Lib. i. Cap. 14. 



432 LETTER VIII. ' 

" astical society. In England they are so accustomed to episcopal 
" government, that though of no divine or apostolic authority, it 
" cannot be dispensed with. In other places, government by over- 
" seers, or ministers, or presbyters, is preferred. But in churches 
" which have never been governed by bishops, tbey may be dis- 
" pensed with, even though the civil government be monarchical^ 
" since this new institution of human origin^ sprung merely from 
" yride and ambition^ and has never been of the least advantage to 
" the church, which in every change of things ought always to be 
" contemplated. And since it will neither diminish nor increase 
** the glory of a prince, whether he receive his own crown from a 
" bishop or pastor." — In another part of the same letter, he says 
— " If you ask for the opinions of the ancients, I entirely agree 
" with Jerome, that, in the apostolic times, there was no difference 
" between bishops and presbi/ters, or elders, and that the church 
" was governed by a common council of presbyters."* 

In this manner did Bochart, unquestionably one of the most 
learned men of his day, speak on the subject under consideration, 
when his opinion was formally requested. And when it is consider- 
ed that he communicated this opinion to a respectable prelate ; 
and, of course, had every inducement to speak as favourably of the 
English hierarchy as possible, the quotation cariies with it peculiar 
weight. 

Bui none of the writers of the reformed churches have been quo- 
ted, by our episcopal brethren, with more confidence, as a witness 
in their favour, than the very learned and celebrated M. Claude. 
The following quotation leaves no room to doubt what were his 
real sentiments on the subject in dispute. 

" The apostles have left no successors in their office, which was 
" unique. It was an extraordinary office ; and they continue to 
" teach and instruct the church in all ages, by their writings. The 
" apostles first collected churches by their preaching. These 
" churches, when assembled, with their advice and assistance, ap- 
" pointed their own presbyters or elders, overseers or bishops ; and 
" they received the symbol, or ceremonial investiture of office, by 
" the laying on of the hands of the presbytery or eldership : The 

f See Outhof's Verklaringe over dmbrief aan Titus, p. 294. § 210. and 
p. 297, 298. § 620. 



SUCCESSORS OF THE REFORMERS. 433 

" office itself being conferred, and the vocation made by the elec- 
" tion of the church. And so scrupulous were the apostles in ap- 
" pointing this order of things, which was to remain in the church, 
*^ that, even in their presence, the ordination rite was performed 
" by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."* 

Again, he says, " As to ordinations of this kind, (by presby- 
" ters,) can the author be ignorant that the distinction of bishop 
" and presbyter, as expressive of different offices, is a distinction 
" which not only cannot be proved by the scriptures; but which 
^^ contradicts their express language, in which it is plain that bi- 
" shop and presbyter are only different names expressive of the 
** same office ? Can this author be ignorant of the opinion of St. 
" Jerome, of Hilary, the deacon, and, after them, of Hincmar^ 
" which they have so explicitly given, concerning the uniti/ or 
" identity of the office of bishop and presbyter, in the earliest ages 
" of the church ; and concerning the origin of that distinction 
" which afterwards took place between them ? Can he be ignorant 
" that St. Augustine himself, writing to St. Jerome, refers that 
" distinction, not to the primitive institution of the ministry, but 
" merely to an eccltssiastical custom, which had since grown up ? 
" Can he be ignorant that some of the fathers have taught us, that 
" the ordination of a presbyter and a bishop are strictly one and 
" the same, and not different kinds of acts, sufficiently expressing 
" to us the identity of the offices ? And as to the right of ordain- 
" ing, can this author deny that St. Paul speaks of the laying on 
^^ of the hands of the presbytery ? Can he deny that presbyters 
" anciently ordained equally with bishops ?"t Further, " The 
" right of ordination, therefore, is one that naturally belongs to 
" presbyters. And since they have been deprived of it by rules 
" and constitutions which are merely of human authority, the 
" right still remains essentially attached to their office, and they 
" may justly reclaim it, whenever the state of the church will per- 
" rait. And that I may declare my opinion with freedom, it ap- 
** pears to me that the haughty and insolent opinion, which main- 
" tains the absolute necessity of episcopal ordinations, and, with- 

* Historical Defence of the Reformation, 4to. ed. 1673. P. iv. C. 3. p. 342. 
t Histor. Def, p. 372, 373. 
3 I 



434 LETTER VIII. 

" out them, annihilates the church, the ministry, and the sacraments, 
<* however pure the faith, the doctrine, and the piety of the church 
" may be ; — thus making religion depend on a form, and that form 
*' of mere human invention;— I repeat it, it appears to me that this 
" insolent opinion carries on it the character of a shameful Corrup' 
*^ Hon ; it bears the mark o(profoimd hypocrisy^ of a pure pha- 
" risaism, which strains at a gnat, while it swallows a camel. I 
*^ cannot help having, at least, a deep contempt for such opinions, 
'^ and compassion for those who are thus obstinate and headstrong 
" in maintaining them."* 

In 1680, when Owen, Baxter, Alsop, Clarkson, Hoive, and 
other eminent English Presbyterians, had written largely and ably 
in defence of their principles; the episcopal writers, feeling them- 
selves deficient in argument, made an attempt to support their 
cause, by soliciting some of the foreign Presbyterians to speak in 
their favour. For this purpose the bishop of London, in that year, 
wrote to M. Claude, requesting him to give his opinion of English 
Presbyterianism. Claude returned a complaisant answer, express- 
ing great respect for the English church; gently • blaming the 
nonconformists for separating from it merely on a question of 
government ; and explicitly conceding that salvation might be 
obtained, and every spiritual advantage received under ihe episco- 
pal regimen. Messieurs L' Angle and he Moyne, being addressed 
in the same manner, wrote in a similar strain. These letters Bishop 
^^i7Z2W^/ee< subjoined to a work of his own, on The Unreasona- 
bleness of Separation, and pompously published as suffrages for 
episcopacy; and ever since, they have been confidently quoted for 
the same purpose. 

M. Claude complained that his letter was published without his 
permission; that a construction was put upon it, which he never 
intended; and that a use was made of it contrary to his wishes. 
These complaints were contained in letters addressed to the bishop 
of London, and to a lady of his acquaintance, in the year 1681 5 
which, however, the Episcopalians of England took care never 
to publish; and which were never given to the world until after 
the death of Claude^ when they were brought to light by his 

* Histor. Def. p. 3/4. 



SUCCESSORS OF THE REFORMERS. 435 

son. The following extracts from these letters will be sufficient 
to place the sentiments of the excellent writer in a just point of 
light. 

" I have receive^ the letter which you were pleased to send 
" me froui the bishop of London, with the book which accompa- 
" nied it. T shall have the honour to reply to the bishop, and to 
" thank him for the present which he hath sent me. Neverthe- 
" less, Madam, as I learn from different places, that many persons 
" have not entirely understood ray sentiments and expressions, 
" touching the present state of the English church, I have believed 
" that it would not be improper to explain myself more particu- 
" larly to you, and to let you know the innocence of my thoughts 
" and intentions. First: I can conscientiously declare that when 
" I wrote on the subject to the bishop o{ London, it was not with 
*' the intention that my letter should be printed, or rendered pub- 
" lie; and that I have even been surprised and astonished to see 
" it as well in French as in English, at the end of the book which 
" you have sent me, with two others, one of Mons. M. and another 
" of Mons. A. — But besides this, be assured, Madam, that, in 
" what I have written, I have had two things only in view ; viz. 
^' to justify us from a calumny which some persons imputed to us, 
" of believing that salvation could not be obtained under the 
" episcopal government; and of aiding as much as my weakness 
" was capable of, a good and holy union of the two parties. 
''With respect lo the Jirst, I believe I have, with sufficient just- 
" ness, explained ihe sentiments of all the protestants of this king- 
" dom, and in particular, of all those who are honoured with our 
" character, (the clergy.) And I am even assured that the 
" English Presbyterians would not go so far as to contest the 
*' possibility of salvation under the ministry of bishops. They 
" have, for that, too much light, wisdom, and christian charity. 
" With respect to the second, I have endeavoured to keep all the 
*< measures which ought to be kept in so great and important an 
" affair as this. I have explained myself only in the form of a 
" wish, and in showing what I desired that the Presbyterians 
"might attentively consider. I have not been silent with regard 
" to the Episcopalians. I have condemned the excesses into which 
^* some of both parties have gone 5 and I have shown, as far as 



436 LETTER VIII. 

" my little wisdom enabled me, the reasons which should induce 
" both to a just and reasonable accommodation."* 

In a letter to the bishop of London, of the same date, M. Claude 
writes thus. " The Nonconformists complain, that the Episcopa- 
" lians are as ardent in pursuing them with the penalties of the 
" laws, as if they were adversaries and enemies. They complain, 
" that your government is no less arbitrary and despotic with 
" regard to dissenting ministers, than that of the bishops of the 
" Roman communion. They complain, that you will receive no 
^* one to the ministry, till he acknowledges, on oath, that Episco- 
" pacy is of divine right, which is a hell (^Gehenne) to the con- 
" science. They complain, that, whilst you do not re-ordain the 
" Roman Catholic priests who come to you, you do re-ordain mi- 
" nisters, who come to you frorii beyond the seas, in the churches 
*' of France, Holland, &c. They complain, that the bishops have 
" a rigid attachment to many ceremonies which are offensive, 
** and for which, nevertheless, they combat tanquam pro aris et 
^'focis. In the name of God, my Lord, labour to remove these 
" grounds of complaint, if there is any truth in them, and if there 
" is not, to give information of the real state of the case. And let 
" all Europe know, that there is nothing which the glory of God, 
" and the love of the church can demand of you, that you are not 
" ready to grant.^t 

It is evident, then, from all the documents which have come to 
light on this subject, that the English bishops, in order to draw 
from the foreign Presbyterians something in their favour, sent to 
them a disingenuous statement of the case ; that, under this decep- 
tion, their answers were written ; and that, as soon as they under- 
stood the real state of things, they complained of having been 
treated with duplicity, and declared opinions very different from 
those which had been imputed to them. That this was the case 
with M. Claude, is certain ; and that it was also the case with his 
brethren, who shared in the imposition which was practised upon 
him, I have no doubt would appear, if we had access to their other 
writings. 

* Les Oeuvres Posfhumes, de M. Claude. Tom. v. Let. 38. 
-j- Lcs Oeuvres FosthumeSy de M. Claude. Tom. v. Let. 39 



SUCCESSORS OF THE REFORMERS. 437 

The learned Daille is also frequently quoted by zealous Episco- 
palians, as having made important concessions in favour of prela- 
cy. I cannot undertake to say that no incautious or doubtful sen- 
tence ever escaped from the pen of this illustrious protestant, on 
the subject of episcopacy ; though I have never seen any which 
warrants the construction of our episcopal brethren ; but I may ven- 
ture to assert, that no candid man can peruse his Sermons on the 
First Epistle to Timothy, without being convinced that he was a 
decided and warm advocate of ministerial parity, as having ob- 
tained in the apostolic and primitive church. To prove this, the 
following extracts are sufficient. 

^^ Here the hierarchs, having their imagination full of their grand 
" prelatures, of their bishoprics, their archbishoprics, and their pri- 
" macies, do not fail to dream of one in these words of the apostle. 
*^ That he besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus, signifies, if 
" you believe them, that he made Timothy bishop of the Church 
" of Ephesus ; and not only that, but even metropolitan, or arch- 
'' bishop of the province 5 and even primate of all Asia. You see 
'* how ingenious is the passion for the crosier and the mitre, being 
** able, in so (ew and simple words, to detect such great mysteries I 
" For where is the man, who, in the use of his natural understand- 
" ing, without being heated by a previous attachment, could ever 
" have found so many mitres — that of a bishop, that of an archbi- 
" shop, and that of a primate, in these two words, Paul besought 
" Timothy to abide still at Ephesus ? Who, without the help of 
" some extraordinary passion, could ever have made so charming 
" and so rare a discovery ? And imagine that to beseech a man to 
"stay in a city, means, to establish him bishop of that city, arch- 
" bishop of the province, and primate of all the country ? In very 
" deed, the cause of these gentlemen of the hierarchy must be re- 
" duced to an evil plight, since they are constrained to resort to 
" such pitiful proofs."* 

Again, he says — " St. Paul, and all the company of pastors, 
" laid hands on Timothy ^{ his ordination. St. Paul as president, 
" and the rest as colleagues, according to the practice which obtains 
" among us, where it is usual for the person appointed by the synod 
" first to lay hands on him that is ordained ; all the rest of the pas- 

* See his^rs^ Sermon on the Epistle. 



438 LETTER VIIT. 

" tors present, afterwards joining with him in laying on their hands 
" on the same person."* 

The languRge of those divines of the Lufheran Church, who suc- 
ceeded the reformers, was not less explicit and decisive than that 
of the other protestant divines of Europe. The following specimen 
of their opinions, is all that I have room to admit. 

The learned Frederick Balduin, professor of divinity in the 
University of Wittemherg, and a superintendent in the Lutheran 
church, speaking on the subject in question, expresses himself in 
the following manner. " Hence the papists commonl}^ cry oat 
" against the pastors of our churches, as if they were not legitimate- 
". ly ordained, because they were not ordained by bishops ; and 
" they assert that neither Luther, nor any other orthodox minis- 
" ters, had the power of conferring orders, because they were not 
" bishops, but only presbyters. But our judgment is that bishops 
*' have their pre-eminence in the church, not by divine right, but 
" by a voluntary arrangement of the church, which thought pro- 
" per to direct that, for the sake of order, a bishop, or he who was 
" first in the ministry, should ordain in the church ; the whole pres- 
" bytery being present, and laying on hands at the same time ; but 
" so, however, that jf the bishop or first minister, should happen 
" to be absent, a presbyter might perform the same duty in his 
« stead, that nothing may be neglected in the church. For a bishop 
*^ is nothing more than thej^rsi presbyter, as St. Augustine tells 
" us, Quoist. 101. exutroque Testam. Accordingly, * in Egypt, 
" presbyters ordain, if a bishop be not present,' as Ambrose writes, 
" in his commentary on Ephesians iv. There is nothing, there- 
" fore, wanting to the validity of our ministry ; for with respect to 
" the difference which the papists make between a bishop and a 
«« presbyter, as if the former only had the power of ordaining, the 
" scriptures do not recognize it. The scriptures ascribe the power 
" of ordination to the whole presbytery, not to a single bishop; as 
" the apostle writes to Timothy — Neglect not the gift which is in 
" thee, which loas given thee by prophecy, loith the laying on of 
" the hands of the presbytery. And the Apostle Faul, though not 
" inferior to.ajjishop in dignity, accepted ordination from the pres- 

* See his 31st Sermon on the Epistle. 



SUCCESSORS OF THE REFORMERS. 439 

" b^'tery of Antioch, not from a single bishop; as we find related, 
" Acts xii. 2. From all which considerations we plainly infer that 
" the legitimacy of the ordinations in the Lutheran churches, 
" whether performed by Luther or by other Lutheran ministers, 
" cannot by any means be called in question.'^* 

Another respectable authority on this subject, is the learned 

. C. Dieterich, a doctor of divinity, and also a superintendent in the 

Lutheran church of Germany, who lived in the age immediately 

following that of Luther. He declares, that " the ordinaiion of 

" ministers in the Lutheran church is by presbyters, and that this 

** method of ordinaiion has the divine warrant.'' And a little 

after, he remarks : " They (the Papists) rail against us, that we 

" are not able to produce a regular commission, because we are 

" neither called, nor ordained by bishops, having papal jurisdic- 

" tion, nor have any legitimate claim to the apostolic succession. 

" But let them rail. This is the old Popish tune to which our ears 

" have become accustomed. Neither bishops alone, nor the Pope 

" alone, have the power of ordaining ministers. The blessed 

" apostles, without any parade of ceremony, were in the habit of 

*' introducing candidates into the sacred office by fasting, prayer, 

" and the imposition of the hands of ministers. We imitate this 

" apostolic simplicity. And where men are called, examined, 

" ordained, and placed in the church by prayer, and the laying on 

" of the hands of the presbytery, the ministry of the word and 

" sacraments, the government of the flock, &;c. are committed to 

" them. Which kind of ordination, though not enjoined by absolute 

" divine command, we nevertheless judge proper to be retained, 

'* partly because it is conformable with the practice of the primi- 

" live church ; and partly, on account of its salutary effects."! 

Again, he remarks — " Scripture knows nothing of any difference 

" between presbyter and bishop. Those v/ho are in one place 

" called presbyters are, a little after, called bishops ; as in Acts 

" XX. 17. 28. St. Jerome shows the same thing in his Commen- 

" tary on the epislle to Titus. With Jerome agreed Chrysostom, 

" Theodoret, Primasius, Theophylact, and other fathers. Even 

* Tradatus Luculentus de Casibus Conscientiae. Lib. 4, Cap. 6. Cas. 4. 
4to. 1628. 

t Analysis Evangeliorum. Par. 11. 47 — 49. 



440 LETTER VIll. 

" in the canon law the same doctrine is contained. For it is there 
" asserted, that, ' formerly a presbyter and a bishop were the same 
" thing.' Even Bellarmine does not deny this, in his work De 
" Clericis, Lib. i. Cap. 12. for he says that the episcopal pre- 
" eminence of one was brought in by the chirch, as a remedy for 
" schism ; and quotes Jerome as his authority. How, then, can it 
" be of divine right?"* 

Professor Hulsemann, a Lutheran divine of great eminence, and 
who also lived in the age immediately following that of Luther, 
in a commentary on the Augustan Co?zyess«ow expresses himself 
in the following manner. " The bishops succeeded in the place 
" of the apostles; not, however, as to that which formally conSti- 
" tuted them apostles. Gal. i. 1. 2 Cor. xii. 11, 12 ;*but as to 
" that which they hold in common with presbyters ; for, by divine 
" right, they are in no respect superior to presbyters.^'f 

Gerhard, a Lutheran divine of great eminence and authority, 
who lived a little after the time of Luther, though he admits that 
a moderate kind of episcopacy amounting to nothing more than a 
standing moderatorship, is lawful, and, in some cases, expedient, 
yet he represents it as a mere human institution ; and explicitly 
speaks of the doctrine that bishops are, by divine right, an order 
superior to presbyters, and alone possess the power of ordination, 
as a Popish error. \ 

The works of few Lutheran divines hold a higher place in the 
esteem of the churches of that denomination, than those of Bud- 
dceus, the celebrated professor of divinity at Leipsic. This learned 
theologian makes the following statement, with respect to the go- 
vernment of his own church. " The judgment of the divines of 
" our church, is this, that, among those who preside in the church, 
** there is, by divine right, no difference, on the score of dignity, 
" so that presbyters and bishops are equal: But, notwithstanding 
" that, there is no solid objection against introducing a certain 
" inequality, on the ground of human expediency, and giving to 
" one of the ministers of the w^ord a sort of inspection over the 

* Analysis Evangeliorum. Par. ii. 61, 62. 

f Manuale- Confessionis dugustanse vindicans earn. Sec. Autorc Johanne 
Hulsemanno. p. 519, 520. 

+ Loci Communes, Tom. 6. Col. 260, 261. 



SUCCESSORS OF THE REFORMERS. 441 

" rest, and, at the same time, a certain pre-eminence of character. 
" Neither do we deny that this was the case in the ancient church ; 
" although the abuse which arose from this, in which the bishops 
" usurped to themselves a tyrannical domination, we greatly detest, 
" Nor can we be charged with having abolished the office of bishop 
" in our church, as Henry Dodwell, and others have reproachfully 
" alleged against us 5* since it is plain from fact, that we have 
" only restored the office to those just limits, and to that true char- 
" acter which it held in the ancient church. For we have not 
" only given to ministers of the word that power which presby- 
" ters enjoyed in the apostolic church ;t but to certain of them 
" there is allowed a kind of pre-eminence or inspection over 
" others. These are called superintendents, or presidents, or 
** inspectors, and, in some places, they are styled hishops.^^X The 
same writer, in the very section from which the above extract is 
taken, more than once remarks, that the Papists, and the English 
Episcopalians are equally in error in asserting the divine right of 
prelacy. He speaks of his having written two works on the Origin 
and Power of Bishops, which were particularly intended to oppose 
the notions of certain high-churchmen in England. He declares, 
that it is notorious and unquestionable that Jerome contended 
zealously for the primitive equality of bishops and presbyters. And 
he also asserts, that the office of deacon was, in process of time, 
perverted from that guardianship of the poor which it was ex- 
pressly intended to subserve by the apostles. 

* The learned Dodwell understood the government of the hutheran 
church much better than Dr. Bowden and Mr. How. He thought that, 
on the principles of the jure divino prelatists, the Lutherans had no 
bishops among- them; and the lesivned Buddxus confesses the fact; though 
he contends that they have such bishops as the ancient church had. 

f Here Buddasus makes a clear distinction between the ancient church, 
and the apostolic church. By the former^ he elsewhere explains himself 
to mean that which existed soon after the apostolic age; by the latter he 
means that ecclesiastical order which the apostles themselves established. 
In the former he admits that a moderate kind of episcopacy was intro- 
duced by human wisdom, and this he says the Lutherans imitate. In 
the latter, he repeatedly and explicitly declares that ministerial parity 
prevailed. 

+ /. F. Buddaei Isagoge Historico-Theologica, &c. Lib. 11. Cap. v. § 11. 
3 K 



442 LETTER VIII. 

The same divine, in his able and learned Preface to Binghani's 
Origines Ecclesiastical, adverting to BingJiam^s high-church opi- 
nions, makes the following declarations. " But when he asserts, 
" further on, that the order of bishops was instituted hy the apos- 
" ties, he will have very few to join him, excepting the Roman 
" Catholics, and the high-toned Episcopalians in England. For 
" there is not only no vestige of such a thing to be found in scrip- 
" iure; but the very contrary is plainly intimated there, viz. that 
" presbyters and bishops were the same thing in the apostolic age." 
He then goes on to show that ihe fathers teach nothing contrary 
to this 5 and by a number of quotations from Ignatius, Clemens 
Alexandrinus, Irenceus, and Tertullian, evidently establishes his 
point. 

I have reserved for separate consideration, the testimony of the 
Synod of Dort ; not only because the proceedings of that venera- 
ble assembly hold a most important station in the iiistory of the 
Christian Church ; but also because they have been misunderstood 
and misrepresented by my opponents, in a manner so extraordina- 
ry as to demand particular notice. Mr. How, especially, has 
allowed himself to speak on this subject in a way for which I 
really feel at a loss to form an adequate apology. To suppose that 
it has never fallen in his way to obtain correct information respect- 
ing it, is the most favourable construction which the case seems to 
admit. 

It is generally known, that the synod of Dort sat in the years 
I6I8 and 1619 j that it was convened for the purpose of consider- 
ing and deciding on the heresy of Arminius; that it was composed 
of delegates from the greater part of the protestant churches of 
Europe ; that King James I. sent five delegates from the church 
of England, to deliberate and vote in the synod ; and that of these 
delegates one was, at that time, a bishop, and two others were, soon 
after their return home, raised to that dignity. It is also well 
known, that the synod, after long and solemn deliberation, formally 
condemned the doctrines of Arminius, and adopted those of Cdl- 
vin ; and that the English delegates concurred, with one voice, 
both in the condemnation of the former, and in the adoption of the 
latter. 

In speaking of the proceedings of this synod, in my seventh 



SUCCESSORS OF THE REFORMERS. 443 

letter, having no temptation to conceal or disguise the truth, I was 
careful to state, that " Bishop Carleton^ and the other English 
delegates expressed their opinion, in the synod, very fully in 
favour of the episcopal form of government." This, however, 
does not satisfy Mr. How. He professes to quote my sentence, 
but adroitly leaves out the words " very fully ^"^ and then exclaims 
— " See, Sir, how you mis-state ? They declared the divine right 
^' of episcopacy. Is there no difference between the two modes 
" of expression ? You seem to have been aware of the necessity of 
" concealing the true state of the case from your readers ; thus 
*' entiding yourself to the credit, at least, of caution as an advocate, 
*' whatever may be thought of your candour as a man." Passing 
by the indelicate suggestion which this passage contains, as beneath 
a reply, I would only ask, where is the " mis-statement ?" To 
say that they " expressed an opinion very fully in favour of epis- 
copacy," is surely a mode of speaking sufficiently strong to cover 
the fact, even as Mr- Uow states it. Whatever " difference'^ there 
may be in the two modes of expression, there is certainly no incon- 
sistency between thetn. 

Mr. How seems desirous of impressing on the minds of his read- 
ers, that the English delegates had been warmly solicited by the 
Dutch to attend their synod ; and complied with their solicitation, 
rather as a matter of courtesy y than of strict ecclesiastical order. 
He says," The English bishops being invited to attend, thought 
it would he wrong to refuse the invitation ; especially as it was 
their ardent wish to promote union and harmony among protest- 
ants." Now it happens that the solicitation was all on the other 
side. The fact is, that the states of Holland at first intended to 
form the synod of Do7't of delegates from their own churches only : 
and it was at the express solicitation of King James, (whose request 
was communicated and seconded by Maurice, Prince of Orange,) 
that eminent divines deputed from England, and other reformed 
countries, were admitted to sit and deliberate in that assembly.* 
Had Mr. How been acquainted with this fact, he could not possibly 
have penned the above cited paragraph. 

* See the Dedications of the ^ds of the Synod of Dort. Toplady*s 
WorkSf Vol. IT. p. 353. Christian Observer, Vol. III. p. 632. Bishop 
Hall*s Works, Vol. HI. p. 15. 



444 LETTER Vlll. 

I had produced, in my seventh letter, the conduct of the English 
delegates to the synod of Dort, in accepting seats in that assembly, 
as an implied recognition of the Presbyterian church of Holland, 
as a true church ; and of all the ministers of the continent who 
composed the synod, (though none of them had received episcopal 
ordination,) as true ministers of Christ. — And in this judgment 
the episcopal historian. Collier, concurs. Dr. Boicden, however, 
is of opinion, that the conduct of the English delegates does by 
no means admit of such a construction. Mr. How goes further, 
and even ventures to affirm, that the history of the English dele- 
gation to the synod of Dort, instead of affording the least coun- 
tenance to the Presbyterian doctrine of parity, rather shows that 
the most respectable delegates to that synod, from the different 
reformed churches, really believed in the doctrine of prelacy by 
divine right ; lamented their want of diocesan bishops ; and ascrib- 
ed their want of this ecclesiastical regimen only to necessity. Nay, 
he declares, that to attempt to construe the attendance of the 
English delegates as 1 have done, " is as jpuerile as it is disinge- 
nuousP Nothing more is necessary than this simple statement to 
show Mr. How^s entire want of acquaintance with the history of 
that synod, and the import of its transactions ; which, indeed, he 
betrays in almost every sentence he has written on the subject. 
Let me request your attention to the following particulars. 

The ministers of the Dutch church had it in their power, at the 
time of the reformation, to retain diocesan episcopacy, if they had 
thought it either scriptural or expedient. The people, for a num- 
ber of centuries, had been accustomed to this kind of ecclesiastical 
government. , The magistrates made no objection to its continu- 
ance. And nothing would have been more easy than to obtain 
regular consecration for protestant bishops. No necessity, there- 
fore, of rejecting prelacy, or of adopting Presbyterian parity, in 
Holland, ever existed, or was -pretended to exist. But such was 
the knowledge which the great and good reformers, in that coun- 
try, had obtained of the government, as well as the doctrines of the 
primitive church, that when they broke off from popery, they 
thought it their duty to restore the scriptural order, together with 
the primitive truth of the church. They had seen the mischiefs of 
prelacy. They knew that it iiad no divine authority for its sup- 
port — And, therefore, when they threw off the yoke of bondage, 



SUCCESSORS OF THE REFORMERS: 445 

they rejected this, not by any means as the worst, but still as one 
of the errors of the Church oi Rome. 

The faith, government, and discipline of the reformed Dutch 
church were settled by a succession of national synods, beginning 
with that of Wesel in 1568, and ending with that of Dort in I6I8 
and 1619.* The synods held at Wesel, in the year above men- 
tioned, and at EmbdeUj in 1571? are considered as having formed 
the fundamental articles of that church, both with respect to doc- 
trine and government. Among the proceedings of the Synod of 
Wesely it was ordained, in the second article of their acts, " That 
" besides forming a consistory in every congregation, the Nether- 
" land provinces should be divided into certain classes."" — And in 
the third article, they say, " As soon as it shall please the Lord to 
" open a door for the free preaching of his word in the Netherlands, 
" care shall be taken immediately for calling provincial synods, for 
" arranging all matters," &c. And it is expressly added, that in 
these judicatories the ministers shall preside in rotation. — In the 
Synod of Embden, in 1571? their acts commence with the same 
regulation respecting consistories, classes, and synods, as were 
stated as having passed at IVesel, three years before. One of their 
articles begins with the^e words — '' No church shall be considered 
" as having authority over another church. No minister of the 
" gospel shall be vested with power above another minister ; but 
" every one shall avoid the very suspicion, and watch against eve- 
" ry temptation that might draw him to assume a superiority." 

It is observable that, for the formation of these ecclesiastical ju- 
dicatories, this synod distributed the reformed churches into three 
great districts. One comprehended all the churches in the western 
part of Germany, and Holland, or Easf-Friesland. Another com- 
prised what they called the Churches under the Cross, meaning 
those which were surrounded by papists, and exposed to the per- 
secution of popish magistrates and ecclesiastics. And the last dis- 
trict which they named, took in all the English churches. The 
12th article, which relates to these last, is very remarkable. " And 
" the members of the church o{ England shall be admonished Xo 

* See a brief and perspicuous sketch, of the rise, progress, and prin- 
ciples of the reformed church of Holland^ in a small book entitled, Ker- 
helyk Hanihoehjey &c. i. e. Church Manualy necessary for ministers and 
consistories. Delf. 1738. 



446 LETTER VIII. 

" distribute their churches also into classes without any further 
" delay.'' From this article it is evident, not only that the Dutch 
church, at this period, was decidedly anti-episcopal in her princi- 
ples'; but also that she wished and hoped to prevail on the Church 
of England to come nearer to her views of ecclesiastical govern- 
ment, if not to adopt them. There is peculiar emphasis in the 
word admonisli, which conveys the idea o( exhortation and loarn' 
ing, with some fear of delinquency. 

In every succeeding national synod down to that of Dort, the 
same Presbyterian principles were decidedly avowed and main- 
tained, as every public document respecting them unequivocally 
proves. In fact, with regard to the parity of ministers, and the 
government of the church by consistorial, classical, and synodical 
assemblies, there was not only a perfect harmony, and absolute de- 
cision, in all the synods antecedent to that of Dort, but each suc- 
ceeding synod literally copied the language of the preceding; and 
all, with undeviating consistency, opposed prelacy, and adhered to 
the Presbyterian model. I challenge Mr. How, or any of his friends, 
to produce a single authentic testimony which shows that, among 
all the discussions and transactions of the church of Holland, re- 
specting ecclesiastical policy, there was ever so much as a p?'opo- 
sal to make the government of that church episcopal ; or a single 
sentence from the writings of any respectable divine in her commu- 
nion, which expresses a belief zw the divine right of diocesan episco- 
pacy, or even a preference for this form of church order. 

With respect to the synod of Dorf, every one who is acquainted 
with its history, and with its published Jets, knows that it was 
entirely and exclusively Presbyterian. To assert or insinuate the 
contrary, is to insult the understanding of every well informed 
man. The ministers who composed that synod, were among 
the most learned, pious, and dignified divines that ever adorned 
the christian church. In transacting the business entrusted to 
them, they bound themselves by the solemnity of an oath, to ad- 
here strictly to the word of God in all their proceedings. And 
the indisputable fact is, that these men, acting under this awful 
solemnity, did, among other articles relating to church government, 
form and adopt the following : " We believe that this true church 
" must be governed by that spiritual policy which our Lord hath 
^' taught us in his word; namely, that there must be ministers or 



SUCCESSORS OF THE REFORMERS. 447 

" pastors, to preach the word of God, and to administer the sacra- 
" raents ; also elders and deacons, who, together with the pastors, 

" form the council of the church. As for the ministers of God's 

" word, they have equally the same power and authority where- 
" soever they are ; as they are all ministers of Christ, the only uni- 
" versal bishop, and the only head of the church."* 

But Dr. Bowden and Mr. How, in the face of all this unques- 
tionable testimony, still contend, that the principal members of the^ 
synod of Dort gave their suffrage in favour of episcopacy. In sup- 
port of this assertion, they quote a laconic and equivocal reply of 
Boo•e?'7na?^, the President of the synod, to Bishop Carleton ; and 
also certain private conversations said to have been held by the 
bishop with the other members of the synod. But neither of these 
when examined, will be found to justify the use which is attempted 
to be made of them. 

The nature and circumstances of the polite reply of President 
Bogerman, on which so much stress has been laid, were as fol- 
lows. Bishop Carleton, when the article maintaining the parity 
of ministers came under consideration, rose in his place and op- 
posed its adoption. He declared that diocesan bishops were of 
divine appointment ; that this order had been retained in the church 
from the time of the apostles ; and that he could by no means give 
his sanction to the article proposed. To this address the bishop 
himself expressly tells ws, " no answer was made by any, ^'f And 
Dr. Heylin says, of the same speech, that " though it was admit- 
" ted, and perhaps recorded, it received no other answer but 
" neglect, if not scorn withal."|: 

Bishop Hall, however, (though by the way, he was not present 
when this event occurred, having retired from the synod three 
months before, on account of indisposition,) gives a different ac- 
count of the matter. Bishop Carleton himself, tells us that, in his 
speech, besides declaring his belief in the divine appointment of 
prelacy, he launched out in praise of this form of ecclesiastical 

* Confession of Faith of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, 
Articles 30 and 31. 

f See his Protestation, published after his return, and entiled Appello 
ad. Caesarem. 

% Hist, of Presbyter, Book 12. p. 400, 



448 LETTER VIJI. 

government, and spoke of its benign effects in England^ in pro- 
moting union, order, and harmony in the church of that kingdom. 
To all this, Bishop Hall says, the only answer made was by the 
President, Bogerman, who simply replied, " Domine, nos non su- 
mus adeo fcelices.'^ My Lord, we are not so happy.* Now as 
Bishop Carleton, who made the speech, declares that no answer 
was given to it by any one ; as Heylin asserts that it was treated 
with neglect, if not with scorn ^ and as Bishop Hall was not him- 
self present, at this time, in the synod ; the probability is, that he 
has given an erroneous statement. But supposing it to be perfect- 
ly correct, to what does it amount ? It might have been intended 
as a delicate sarcasm on the bishop, for his unseasonable introduc- 
tion of this controversy. It might have been uttered as a mere 
compliment to a stranger, who was a prelate, and with whom it was 
not desirable to have any dispute, when the object of the synod 
was so entirely different. It might have been meant only to convey 
the idea, that the church o( Holland was not so happy as to be in 
that quiet, united, and orderly state, which had been represented 
as existing in the church of England. At any rate the answer is 
perfectly equivocal, and furnishes no warrant whatever for the 
construction of my opponents. 

But these gentlemen lay no small stress on another circumstance. 
Bishop Carleton, in the same Protestation which was before 
quoted, informs us, that " in his private discourse with some of the 
" most learned divines of the synod, he told them that the troubles 
" oi Holland proceeded from their want of bishops 5 and that the 
" Churches of those provinces would never be quiet until they had 
" bishops to govern the clergy." To these remarks, he tells us, 
they answered, " that they highly esteemed the good order and 
*^ discipline of the Church of England, and heartily wished the 
" same order was established ir? their country ; but that they could 
" not hope for it in the present posture of affairs. They added, 
" that they hoped God would assist them by his grace, and that 
" they would contribute with all their might to the establishment of 
" that good order." "Such," the bishop adds, " was their answer 
"tome. This I think, justifies them sufficiently. It appears that 

* HaWs Episcopacy by Divine Right, 8tc. Part. i. § 4. 



SUCCESSORS OF THE REFORMERS. 449 

" they do not love popular confusion, and a government desti- 
" tute of all authority." Mr. How must really be at a loss for 
testimony, when he can speak with so much exuUation of this an- 
swer. It is nothing to the purpose. The bishop, according to 
his own account, had been declaiming on the advantages of Episco- 
pal government, and on its influence as he supposed, in promoting 
the tranquillity, and happiness of the Church which he represented. 
To this, the Dutch divines, according to the same account, replied^ 
that they had a very respectful opinion of the good order and 
discipline of the Church of England, and heartily wished that 
similar order and discipline were established in their own Church. 
But what did they mean by the " good order^^ and " disciplined^ 
of the Church of England ? Did they mean her prelacy? This 
is so far from being certain that it is not even probable. There is 
every reason to believe they only meant to say, that they highly 
esteemed the regular, settled, and orderly/ state which the English 
Church had attained ; that they should be glad to see'a similar re- 
gularity, and quietness established among themselves; but that 
amidst so much confusion, they could hardly expect so happy a 
result. The truth is, the peace of the Church of Holland was, at 
this time, much disturbed by the controversy with the Remon- 
strants, which deeply agitated both church and state. In these 
circumstances, nothing was more natural than that the members of 
the Synod should lament their divisions, and express a desire to 
establish among themselves the same quietness and peace which 
the Church of England enjoyed ; and all this they might say with- 
out having the least wish or preference in lavour of her prelacy. 

This then is the state of the case. The Reformed Church of 
Holland was Presbyterian from the beginning. By a succession 
of national synods the doctrine of ministerial parity was asserted, 
published and maintained, in the most decisive manner, not merely 
as dictated by expediency, but also as founded in divine appoint- 
ment. The Synod of Dor^ spoke the same language, and main- 
tained the same doctrine. Nay, with a solemnity which had taken 
place at no preceding synod, the members of that assembly, under 
the obligation of an oath, declared, that they considered themselves 
as bound to conform to the apostolic model of church government, 
and that this model was Presbyterian. And to all this evidence, 
Mr. How has nothing to oppose, but a few equivocal words of 
3 L 



450 LETTER VIII. 

some individual members of the synod, whicii probably had no 
reference to prelacy at all. Who, now, let me ask, has proved 
himself most liable to the charges of " extreme imprudence," and 
of having brought forward " puerile" and " disingenuous" allega- 
tions? Truly charges of this kind come with a very ill grace from 
Mr. Hoio. 

But we have another method of ascertaining the real sentiments 
of some of those divines who composed the Synod of Dort, besides 
their public conduct in that body. I mean by examining their 
private writings^ in which we may take for granted they expressed 
their genuine convictions. From such of those writings as I have 
been able to procure, a itv/ short extracts will be presented, and 
will be found conclusive. 

Gomarus, professor of divinity at Groningen, was one of the 
most eminent of the Dutch delegates lo that famous synod. On 
the subject of Episcopacy, he expresses himself in the following 
strong and -decisive language. *' The clesignation of bishop^ as 
" introduced after the apostles' time, is unknown to the Scriptures, 
** in which it signifies the same thing with the presbyter and pastor, 
" Where Paul recites the various kinds of Gospel ministers, as in 
^^ EpJies. 4. 11, he acknowledges no such bishops distinct from 
" Presbyters, and superior to them. To which purpose Jerome's 
*•' judgment is memorable, which is extant in his commentary on 
" the Epistle to Titus i. 1, where, comparing the 5th and 7th verses, 
"he infers that the bishop and presbyter are one and the same, 
" Which point he doth, likewise, (in the same manner that we 
" have done,) demonstrate from Philip, i. 1. and Acts xx. 28, 29. 
" and other passages connected therewith, concluding all with this 
'* weighty assertion, that with the ancients, bishops and presbyters 
" were one and the same ; until, by degrees, the care and inspec- 
" tion were put upon one ; and that the bishops were set over the 
*^ presbyters, rather by custom than by divine appoint?netit. This 
" custom, continues Gomarus, did, at last, bring upon the Church, 
" the mischievous dominion of bishops, contrary to the apostle's 
" command."* 

Again, " There is no bishop to be found set over presbyters in 
" any place of holy writ. The distinguishing of bishops from 

• Explicat. Epist. ad Galaias, Cap. ii. p. 437. 



SUCCESSORS OF THE REFORMERS. 451 

" presbyters, and setting them over presbyters, in an authoritative 
" prelacy, took its rise/rom no divine institution^ but from human 
" tradition, which had its foundation inpride.^'* 

Polyander, Thysius, and Walrus Professors of divinity in the 
Universities of Lei/den, Harderwich, and Middelburg, were also 
conspicuous and active members of the synod of Dort. These 
learned divines were engaged in a joint work, under the title of 
Synopsis Theologiai, which has been long highly esteemed in the 
church of Holland. Of that work, the following strong and decisive 
passages are a specimen. 

" The apostle calls the same persons presbyters and bishops 
" indifferently. Of this we have examples, in Acts 20, 28, where 
^' he exhorts the presbyters of the church of Ephesus to attend to 
*' the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them bishops ; 
<* — also in i Timothy 3, 2. where he describes a bishop from his 
** qualifications and duties, which same qualifications and duties, 
" the Apostle Peter ascribes to \i\s fellow-presbyters ; so also in 
" his epistle to the Fhilippians 1. 1. by bishops he evidently 
*' understands those who presided over the church of Philippic 
*^ in the administration of the word and discipline 5 and these 
" he distinguishes from deacons who were entrusted with the 
" church's treasure, &c. &c." After adducing several other 
instances of a similiar kind, it is added, " The title of bishop 
" in scripture does not denote the authority of one minister 
" over other ministers of Christ, or any kind of prerogative enjoyed 
" by one over others ; but is merely used to designate that watch 
" and care over the church which belongs to an individual." 

Again, " The practice, therefore, of investing one person from 
" among the presbyters with the authority of president, and giving 
" him, by way of eminence, ihe title of bishop, was not a divine, 
" but a mere human appointment, and was brought in after the 
" apostles' time ; as, after Jerome, many o{ the jmpists themselves 
" confess, particularly Lombard, Gratian, Cusan, and others.'' 

Further, " The right of choosing pastors belongs to the church, 
" and as well to the body of the people as to the elders ; but the 
" right of ordination belongs to the presbytery alone. And accord- 
" ingly, in ancient times, the election of pastors was made by the 
^^ suffrages of the whole body of the people belonging to a church 5 

* Explicat, in r Pet. 5.' p. 704. 



452 LETTER Vlll. 

" but the ordination was performed by one of the pastors, in the 
" name of the whole presbytery, and in the presence of the church, 
" by the imposition of hands." 

In another place they declare, " Although a iew of the first pas- 
" tors of our churches were ordained by bishops, by far the greater 
" part have been more recently ordained by presbyters. The or- 
" dination of the latter is quite as valid as that of the former ; be- 
" cause bishops and presbyters were formerly the same thing ; and 
" by divine right, the power of ordaining pastors equally belonged 
« to both."* 

In the same work, these divines, in the most explicit manner, 
assert the apostolical institution oi ruling elders and deacons ; the 
former to assist the pastor in the exercise of government and dis- 
cipline in each church ; the latter to take care of the poor. And 
they expressly declare, that they consider the Church of Holland, 
in retaining these officers, as following the example of the apostolic 
church.t 

You will pardon me, my brethren, for this long, and I fear, te- 
dious induction of authorities and quotations. It never occurred to 
me, before I saw Mr. Howh pamphlet, that it was possible for any 
well-informed man, who valued his reputation, to give such a 
statement as that gentleman has done of the sentiments of the princi- 
pal divines of the reformed churches. We now see of what he is 
capable. The next step will probably be to assert, that the Gene- 
ral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, ever 
has been, and now is, decidedly prelatical both in its principles and 
practice. For, really, such an assertion would not be a whit more 
unfounded, nor fly more directly in the face of all authentic testi- 
mony, than several which I have been called to refute in the fore- 
going pages. It is plain, however, that the more deeply and exten- 
sively we pursue our inquiries, the stronger and brighter appears 
the evidence in favour of the Presbyterian doctrine. It is more and 
more manifest, that, in pleading the cause of this doctrine, we are 
pleading the cause of every protestant church on earth, excepting 
xh^i Qi England, and those who claim descent from her as their 
parent. 

• Synop. Pur. Theohgix. Dlsputat. xlii. § 29, 30. 32, oo. 47. 
t Ibid. Dlsputat. xlii. 20. 59. 60. 65. 



( 453 ) 



LETTER IX. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 



CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

Dr. Bowden represents Presbyterians as believing that prela- 
cy was suddenly and violently established ; that " a wonderful revo- 
" lution took place, calculated to influence the passions of thou- 
" sands, producing violent convulsions, and virulent animosities." 
And expresses great astonishment that such a revolution, intro- 
duced at once, should not have been more distinctly recorded by 
the early writers. 

This is a total misrepresentation. Presbyterians believe and 
affirm, with Jerome, that prelacy arose <•' hy little and little.^' 
They attribute its introduction to causes quite sufficient to account 
for the fact, without producing the convulsions and noise which fill 
the imagination of Dr. Bowden, The^e causes were, the facility, 
the indolence, and the inconsideration of some ; the ambition of 
others ; the precedency of standing moderators ; the veneration 
paid to senior ministers, and such as were of superior talents and 
influence; the respect attached to those who resided in large cities, 
and other considerations of a similar kind. With such causes as 
these incessantly at work, who can fail to consider as the most 
probable of all events, that which Dr. B. represents as altogether 
impossible? 

But Dr. Bowden thinks it utterly inctedible that the clergy in 
the second or third centuries should have been guilty of usurping 
power, or of struggling for pre-eminence. If we may believe him 



454 LETTEli IX. 

they were too pious, disinterested, and humble, to admit the sus- 
picion of selfishness or ambition having any place among them. 
^^' Surely," says he, " men of such distinguished virtue and piety, 
" as the bishops of that period are universally acknowledged to 
" have been, could not have entertained a thought so inconsistent 
" with a pure conscience, with peace of mind, and with the hope of 
" future happiness. Could men who displayed all the meekness 
" and humility of Christians, have attempted a plan of domination 
** so completely at variance with these virtues ? Could men who 
'' endured every thing for the sake of Christ, violate his sacred in- 
^^ stitution ? Could men, who, to save themselves from the most 
*^ excruciating torments, would not offer incense at the idol altars, 
" deliberately associate for the purpose of acquiring a trifling 
" authority over their brethren ? What ! conscientious in every 
" thing relating to christian purity, to christian manners, and yet 
'^profligate as to the constitution of the christian church ! Gross 
" inconsistency ! Palpable contradiction !" Again — " What was 
" the motive that influenced a few presbyters to attempt an as- 
" sumption of superiority over their brethren ? Was it a desire of 
" temporal power? That was entirely out of the question, without 
" the aid of civil authority. And every one knows that kind of 
" authority was exerted for the destruction of the church. Was it 
" the love of wealth ? None resulted from the acquisition, or covM 
" result from it. The people were generally poor, and the bi- 
" shops, as well as the presbyters and deacons were maintained 
" out of the offerings at the altar ; and scanty was the fare that 
" proceeded from that source. Was it the love of ease and secu- 
" rity ? That could not be ; for episcopal superiority greatly 
" increased the labours of the bishops, and exposed them to almost 
" certain destruction. If, then, neither dominion, nor wealth, nor 
" ease, nor security, could possibly be the motives for so daring an 
" attempt as to deprive the presbyters of their most sacred rights, 
" those ambitious spirits, as you deem them, must have acted 
" without any motive, which is evidently inconsistent with the 
" very nature and constitution of the human mind." 

It is really putting one's patience to a very severe test to find an 
opponent so frequently alluding to his own superior " scholarship" 
and reading, and at the same time permitting himself to write in 
this manner. What ! no clerical ambition ! No strife about pre- 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 455 

eminence ? No ecclesiastical usurpation in those early ages ? It 
would have been just as reasonable, and just as true, if he had said 
that the gospel was preached in those days by none but angels, — 
But let us attend to a few facts. 

Passing by several cases in point which occurred during the 
the lives, and under the immediate eye of the apostles, when, as 
St. Paw/ himself assures us, the mystery of iniquity had already 
begun to work, let me ask. Was there no spirit of domination ma- 
nifested in the fierce dispute between Victor, bishop o^ Rome, and 
Folycrates, of Ephesus, which took place in the second century, 
as related by Eusebius ? . Was no love of pre-eminence displayed 
by Cerinthus and Basilides, whose burning desire was " to be 
" accounted great apostles ?" Did Montanus, in the same century, 
exhibit no ambition in broaching his celebrated heresy? Was 
Samosatenus, in the third wholly free from the same charge ? Did 
Demetrius of Alexandria, discover nothing of an aspiring temper, 
when he sickened with envy at the fame and the success of Ori- 
gen ? Are there no accounts of Novatus having sought, ambi- 
tiously and fraudulently, to obtain the bishopric of Rome ? Did 
not his contemporary, Felicissimus, make a vigorous attempt to 
supplant Cyprian, as bishop of Carthage ? Was not Cyprian 
brought in to be bishop in that city, by the influence of the people, 
in opposition to the majority of the presbyters, some of whom 
were anxious to obtain the place for themselves ? And did there 
not hence arise frequent collisions between him and them, and at 
length an open rupture ? 1 ask, are any of these things related in 
the early history of the church ? And can any man, with such 
records before him, lay his hand on his heart, and assert that there 
were no symptons of a spirit of ambition and domination in those 
times ? 

But I will not content myself with this general reference to the 
early conflicts of selfishness and ambition. The following specific 
quotations will be more than suflncient, if I do not mistake, to cover 
Dr. Bowden with confusion. 

Hermas, one of the earliest fathers whose writings are extant, 
says, in his Pastor, " As for those who had their rods green, but 
" yet cleft 5 they are such as were always faithful and goodj but 
" they had some envy and strife among themselves, concerning 
" dignity and pre-eminence. Now all such are vain and without 



456 LETTER IX. 

" understanding, as contend with one anothei' about these things. 
" Nevertheless, seeing they are otherwise good, if, when they shall 
" hear these commands, they shall amend themselves, and shall, 
" at my persuasion, suddenly repent; they shall, at last, dwell in 
" the tower, as they who have truly and worthily repented. But 
" if any one shall again return to his dissensions, he shall be shut 
*^ out of the tower, and lose his life. For the life of those who 
" keep the commandments of the Lord, consists in doing what 
" they are commanded ; not in 'principality^ or in any other 
" digniti/J^* 

Hegesippits, who lived in the second century, and who was the 
first father who undertook to compose a regular ecclesiastical his- 
tory, writes thus. "When James, the just, had been martyred 
" for the same doctrine which our Lord preached, Simon, the son 
" of Cleophas, was constituted bishop with universal preference, 
" because he was the Lord's near kinsman. Wherefore they 
" called that church a pure virgin, because it was not defiled with 
" corrupt doctrine. But Thehuli, because he was not made bishop, 
" endeavoured to corrupt the church ; being one of the seven here- 
" tics among the people, whereof was Simon, of whom the Simo' 
" maws."t 

Dr. Boioden represents the age of Cyprian^s among the very 
purest periods of the Christian church, and quotes that father with 
a frequency and a confidence which evince the highest respect for 
his authority. The following passages will show how far the il- 
lustrious pastor of Carthage considered the bishops of his day as 
beyond the reach of selfishness and ambition. 

" A long continuance of peace and security! had relaxed the 
" rigour of that holy discipline which was delivered to us from 
"above. All were set upon an immeasurable increase of gain; 
" and, forgetting how the first converts to our religion had behaved 
" under the personal direction and care of the Lord's apostles, or 
" how all ought in after times to conduct themselves ; the love of 
" money was their darling passion, and the master spring of all 

* Simil. 8. § 7. 

f ^defragments of this writer preserved in Eusebius, Lib. iv. Cap. 
22. 
+ They had been free from persecution only about thirty eight years. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 457 

« their actioAs. The religion of the clergy slackened and decayed ; 
*' the faith of priests and deacons grew languid and inactive ; 
<^ works of charity were discontinued ; and an universal license 
" ami corruption prevailed. Divers bisJiops, who should have 
" taught, both by their exanaple and persuasion, neglecting their 
" high trust, and their commission from above, entered upon the 
" management of secular affairs ; and leaving their chair, and their 
" charge with it, wandered about, from place to place in different 
*^ provinces, upon mercantile business, and in quest of disreputable 
*^ gain. Thus the poor of the church were miserably neglected, 
** while the bishops, who should have taken care of them, were in- 
" tent upon nothing but their own private profit, which they were 
" forward to advance at any rate, and by any, even \\i(t foulest 
" methodsJ'* 

Speaking of Cornelius, who had been made bishop, Cyprian 
says, " In the next place, he neither desired, nor canvassed for 
**' the dignity conferred upon him; much less did he invade it, as 
" some others would, who were actuated by a great and lofty con- 
" celt of their own qualifications ; but peaceably and modestly, like 
" such as are called of God to this office. — Instead of using violence, 
** as a certain person in this case hath done, to be made a bishop, 
" he suffered violence, and was raised to his dignity by force and 
" compulsion."t 

The same father, in the same epistle, has the following passage. 
" Unless you can think him a bishop, who, when another was or- 
'* dained by sixteen of his brethren bishops, would obtrude upon 
" the church a spurious and foreign bishop, ordained by a parcel 
" of renegadoes and deserters ; and that by canvassing and 
" intriguing for it."| 

Cyprian speaks also of a certain deacon who had been deposed 
from his " sacred diaconate, on account of \\\s fraudulent and 
" sacrilegious misapplication of the church's money to his own 
" private use ; and by his denial of the widows' and orphans' 
" pledges deposited with him."§ 

Origen, the contemporary of Cyprian, more than once lashes 
the clergy of his day for their vices. The following passage is 

♦ De Lapsis. § 4. -' f Epist. 55. 

+ Ibid. § Episi. 52. 

3 M 



458 LETTER IX. 

surely strong enough, were there no other, to take away all doubt. 
" If Christ justly wept over Jerusalem, he may now, on much bet- 
" ter grounds, weep over the church, which was built to the end 
" that it might be an house of prayer 5 and yet, through iheJiUhi/ 
^^ usury of some, (and I wish these were not even the pastors o( 
" the people,) is made a den of thieves. But I think that that 
" which is written concerning the sellers of doves, doth agree to 
" those who commit the churches to greedy, tyrannical,unlearned, 
*^ and irreligious bishops, presbyters, and deaconsP^ The same 
father elsewhere declares : " We are such as that we sometimes in 
" pride go beyond even the wickedest of the princes of the gen- 
" tiles; and are just at the point of procuring for ourselves splen- 
" did guards, as if we were kings, making it our study moreover 
" to be a terror to others, and giving them, especially if they be 
" poor, very uneasy access. We are to them, when they come and 
" seek any thing from us, more cruel than are even tyrants, or the 
" crudest princes to their supplicants. And you may see, even in 
" the greater part of lawfully constituted churches, especially those 
" of greater cities, how the pastors of God's people, suffer none, 
" though they were even the chiefest of Christ's disciples, to be 
" equal with themselves.'^t 

Eusebius, who lived in the next century, writes in the same 
strain concerning the age of Cyp7'ian. " When, through too much 
" liberty, we fell into sloth and negligence ; when every one began 
" to envy and backbite another ; when we waged, as it were, an 
" intestine war amongst ourselves, with words as with swords ; 
^^ pastors rushed against pastors, and people against people, and 
" strife and tumult, deceit and guile advanced to the highest pitch 
" of wickedness. — Our pastors, despising the rule of religion, 
^ strove mutually with one another, studying nothing more than 
" how to outdo each other in strife, emulations, hatred, and mu- 
" tual enmity ; proudly usurping principalities, as so many 
*' places of tyrannical domination. Then the Lord covered the 
" daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger."| 

Nay, Archbishop Whitgift, with all his episcopal partialities, 
was constrained to acknowledge the ambitious and aspiring temper 
which disgraced many bishops even as early as the time of 

* In Matt. p. 441. f Ibid. p. 420. 

\ Hist. Eccles. Lib. VIII. Cap. I. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 459 

Cyprian. " There was great contention," says he, " among the 
" bishops in the council of Nice, insomuch that even in the presence 
" of the Emperor, they ceased not to libel one against another. 
" What bitterness and cursing was there between Epiphanins and 
" Chrysostom! What jarring between Jerome and Augustine! 
" Bishops shall not now need to live by pilling ?Lnd polling j as it 
" seems they did in Cyprimi's time ; for he complalneth thereof 
" in his sermon De hapsis^* 

With Whitgift agrees his contemporary Rigaltius, who was so 
much distinguished for his learned annotations on the works of 
Cyprian. Speaking of Cyprian's age, and of the deacon's office, 
he says, " By little and little, and from Jsmall beginnings, a king-' 
" doniy and a love of dominion entered into the church. — In the 
" apostles' time there were only deacons ; Cyprian's age admitted 
'^sub-deacons; the following age arch-deacons , ixnd then arch- 
*^ bishops and patriarchs.'^ 

These extracts are produced, not to blacken the ministerial 
character ; but to establish theyac^, which Dr. Bowden denies, that 
clerical ambition, and clerical encroachments were familiarly 
known, even during that period which he pronounces the purest 
that was ever enjoyed by the christian church. I certainly have 
no interest, and can lake no pleasure in depicting the foibles, the 
strife, and the vices, of the clergy in any age. But when assertions 
are made respecting them as directly contradictory to all history, 
as they are contrary to the course of depraved human nature; and 
especially when these assertions are triumphantly employed as 
arguments to establish other assertions equally unfounded, it is time 
to vindicate the truth. To do this, in the present case, is an easy 
task. The man who, after perusing the foregoing extracts, can 
dare to say, that the clergy of the first three centuries, were all too 
pious and disinterested to admit the suspicion, that they aspired to 
titles and honours, and intrigued for the attainment of episcopal 
chairs, must have a hardihood of incredulity, or an obliquity of 
perception truly extraordinary. We have seen that Hermas 
plainly refers to certain ecclesiastics of his time, who had " envy 
and strife among themselves concerning dignity and pre-eminence." 
Hegesippus goes further, and points out the case of a particular 

* Defence of his Mswer against Cartwright, p. 472, Sic. 



460 LETTER IX. 

individualj who ambitiously aspired to the office of bishop, and 
was exceedingly disappointed and mortified at not obtaining it. 
Cyprian expressly declares not only that a spirit of intrigue, of 
worldly gain, and of ecclesiastical dDmination, existed among the 
clergy of his day, but that such a spirit was awfully prevalent 
among ihem. Eusebius gives us similar information in still stronger 
terms. Archbishop Whitgift makes the same acknowledgment, 
more particularly with respect to the bishops of that period. And 
even Dr. Bowden himself, forgetting his- own assertions, unwarily 
acknowledges, in several other parts of his work, that a number of 
persons, as early as the days of Cyprian, and before his time, who 
aspired to the office of bishop, and who used every effort and 
artifice to attain it, on being disappointed, distinguished themselves 
as heretics or schismatics, and became the pests of the church. 
Was there no spirit of ambition and domination among such men ? 
Why did they aspire to the office of bishop ? Was there nothing in 
that office to attract their regard, or to excite their cupidity ? Or 
did they act without motive ? Surely this gentleman needs to have 
some one at hand to refresh his memory, and to prevent him from 
warring against his own cause. But a man must be wary and 
ingenious indeed, who can be consistent when truth is against 
him. 

Still, however, the question recurs : What, in those days of per- 
secution and peril, before Christianity was established 5 when the 
powers of the world were leagued against it ; and when every 
Christian pastor especially held a station of much self-denial and 
danger, what could induce any selfish or ambitious man to desire 
the pastoral office, and to intrigue for the extension of the powers 
and honours of that office ? When my opponents can tell me what 
induced Judas Iscariot to follow Christ at the risk of his life ; when 
they can tell me what impelled Diotrephes to desire the pre-emi* 
nence in the church ; or what were the objects of Demas, Hyrne- 
ncEUS, and Alexander, in their restless and ambitious conduct, while 
Calvary was yet smoking with the blood of their crucified Lord, 
and while their own lives were every moment exposed to the rage 
of persecution ; — when my opponents can tell me what actuated 
these men, I shall be equally ready to assign a reason for the early 
rise and progress of prelacy. 

But there is no need of retreating into the obscurity of conjecture, 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 461 

>yhen causes enough to satisfy every mind may easily be assigned. 
If Dr. Bowden does not know tiiat there are multitudes of men, in 
all ages, in the church, and out of it, who are ready to court dis- 
thiction, merely for distinction's sake, and at the evident hazard 
of their lives, he is less acquainted both with human nature and with 
history than I have been accustomed to suppose him. But this is 
not all. It is a notorious fact, notwithstanding all the round asser- 
tions of Dr. Bowden to the contrary, that the office of bishop, even 
in very early times, had much to attract the cupidity as well as 
the ambition of selfish and aspiring men. The revenues of the 
piinjitive church were large and alluring. It is granted that, during 
the first three centuries, the church held little or no real property; 
as the Roman laws did not allow any person to give or bequeath 
real estates to ecclesiastical bodies, widiout the consent of the 
senate or the Emperor. The contributions ^ however, which were 
made to the church, for the support of the clergy, the poor, &c. 
were immense. During the apostolic age, the proceeds of the sale 
of real estates were devoted to ecclesiastical and charitable pur- 
poses, and laid at the apostles' feet. We find the gentile churches 
contributing liberally to the relief of the churches of Judea, in 
j4cts XI. 29. Bom. XV. 26. i Corinth, xvi. 1. and 2 Corinth, viii. 
The same liberality manifested itself in subsequent times.* So 
ample were the funds of the church of Rome, about the middle of 
the second century, that they were adequate not only to the support 
of her own clergy and poor members; but also to the relief of 
other churches, and of a great number of Christian captives in the 
several provinces, and of such as were condemned to the mines.t 
Such was the weahh of the same church, in the third century, that 
it was considered as an object not unworthy of imperial rapacity. 

* One cause of the liberality of the primitive Christians in their con- 
tributions to the church, was the notion which generally prevaikd, that 
the enrZ 0/ //te twr/flJ was at hand. This notion was adopted by some of 
the early fathers, and propagated among the people with great diligence. 
Cyprian taught, in his day, with great confidence, that the dissolution of 
the world was but a few years distant. Epist. ad Thibart. The tendency 
of this opinion to diminish the self-denial of parting with temporal wealth 
is obvious. See Father Paul's Hist, of Benefices and Revenues. Chap. II. 

f Father Paul's History of Ecclesiastical Benefices and Revenues, 
Chap. III. 



462 LETTER TX. 

By order of the Emperor Decius, the Roman deacon Laureniius 
was seized, under the expectation of finding in his possession the 
treasures of the church, and of transferring them to the coffers of 
the Emperor : But the vigilant deacon, fearing the avarice of the 
tyrant, had distributed them, as usual, when a persecution was 
expected. Frudentius introduces an officer of the Emperor, thus 
addressing the deacon : Quod Ccesaris sczs, Ccesari da, nempe 

justum postulo ; nifallor, liaudullam iuus signat Deus pecuniam. 
i. e. Give to Ccesar what you know to be his, I ask what is just ; 

for if I mistake not, your God coins no money. ^ 

Now the revenues of the churches, whether great or small were 
at the disposal of the bishops. The deacons executed their orders. 
Of course they had every opportunity of enriching themselves at 
the expense of the church. And that they embraced this oppor- 
tunity, is attested by Cyprian, who laments the fact, and is of opi- 
nion that the persecution which took place in the reign of Decius, 
was intended by God to punish a guilty people, and to purge this 
corruption from his church.t And yet, in the face of all this tes- 
timony. Dr. Bowden has permitted himself to assert, that there was 
no temptation, either before or during the age of Cyprian, to induce 
any man to desire the office of a bishop ; and especially that it 
was impossible for any to be moved by the love oi wealth to seek 
that office, because no acquisitions of that kind " resulted from it, 
or cow/cZ result from it !" It is really amazing that gentlemen can 
so entirely close their eyes against the light of all authentic history. 
If Dr. Bowden were an ardent and incautious young man who had 
but lately commenced the examination of this subject, he might be 
pardoned on the score of ignorance ; but to a gentleman of his long 
experience and standing in the controversy, it is difficult to suppose 
this apology applicable. 

One of the arguments which I adduced in support of the gradual 
introduction of prelacy, was the fact, that metropolitans, or arch- 
bishopsj though acknowledged on all hands not to have been insti- 



* Prudent, in Lib. de Coronis. Father Pauls History of Ecclesiastical 
Benefices and Bevenues, Chap. iii. 
t See his discourse De Lapsis, before quoted. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 463 

tuted by the apostles, were yet early brought in by human ambi- 
tion y while, at the same time, the early records are so scanty, that 
we are unable to pronounce when they were first introduced. 

To this Dr. Bowden gives two answers. The Jirst is, that we 
can decide, with certainty, when the authority of metropolitans 
took its rise : And the second, that the cases are by no means 
parallel, and that the argument, even if the facts were admitted, is 
of no force. 

To establish the first point. Dr. B. quotes a short passage from 
Dr. Cave, a divine of the eighteenth century, who gives it as his 
opinion, that metropolitans were inlnroduced " not long after the 
*^ apostolic age, when sects and schisms broke in apace, and when 
*^ controversies were multiplied between particular bishops." But 
was Cave a primitive father ? ' What authority had he to decide 
suck a question ? And what did he mean by the expression " not 
long after the apostolic age ? " Did he mean two, three, or four 
centuries? All is vague and conjectural. Besides, from this pas- 
sage it leaks out, after all Dr. Bowden^s care to conceal it, or 
rather his explicit denial of the fact, that there were sects and 
schisms, andjarrings among the bishops, *• not long after the apos- 
tolic age." In support of the same assertion, Dr. Bowden quotes 
a longer passage from Bingham, another divine of the eighteenth 
century, who, after expressing his agreement v/ith Cave, adds, 
" Perhaps the office of metropolitan took its rise from that com- 
" mon respect and deference, which was usually paid by the rest of 
'* the bishops to the bishops of the civil metropolis in every pro- 
" vince." He then produces, what Dr. B. calls " sufficient evidence," 
that this office existed in the second century ; that there are traces 
of its commencement as early as the time of Irenoeiis; that it 
advanced gradually ; and that it was not until about the time of the 
Council of Nice that the term metropolitan came into frequent use. 
Now, though Dr. Bowden contents himself with very slender 
proof; and though his confident conclusion, that " there is not the 
least difficulty in determining when primates or metropolitans 
took their rise in the Christian Church," is, in the connection in 
which it stands, truly ludicrous ; yet, allowing it to be correct, does 
not every discerning reader perceive that he is unwittingly con- 
firming ray argument ? He concedes, that metropolitans were 
Tiot instituted by the apostles ; and he also concedes, that they 

/ 



464 LETTER IX. 

were brought in, by human contrivance^ soon after the apostolic 
age ; but that they were not spoken of familiarly, under this title, 
until near the middle of the fourth century. But how they were 
introduced ; by what means ; whether with or without opposition, 
neither he, nor the divines whom he quotes as his authorities, have 
any thing more than conjecture to offer. And is not this exactly 
the ground on which I assert the fact to stand ? With whom is 
this gentleman contending ? 

Dr. Bowden goes further, and contends, in the second place, 
that, " even if it were impossible to determine the time when me- 
tropolitans first appeared in the church, there would be no parallel 
between this difficulty, and the one relating to episcopacy.^' But 
why no parallel ? The office of metropolitan was a grade of eccle- 
siastical pre-eminence, as well as that of ordinary bishop. Now, 
if it be granted, that the former office was introduced by human 
contrivance ; that it was gradually brought in ; that it was intro- 
duced without any known opposition and noise; why might not 
the same facts have occurred with respect to prelacy ? Dr. Bou}- 
den, indeed, asserts, that the office of metropolitan was, in the 
beginning, a mere presidency, introduced for the sake of conve- 
nience and order ; that in this stage of its rise, there was no mate- 
rial encroachment on the rights of others; and, of course, nothing 
that had a tendency to excite alarm, resentment, or opposition. 
And is not this exactly what we say concerning the rise of prelacy ? 
In all these respects, indeed. Dr. B. would persuade us, that the 
rise of metropolitanism was wholly unlike that of prelacy. But 
for this we have only his word. He does not produce even a 
shadow of proof. On the contrary we maintain, that prelacy arose, 
with very little variation, in the same manner in which he represents 
metropolitanism as having been brought in. And the acknowledged 
fact, that the latter was early introduced, without exciting, so far 
as we know, any extensive opposition or noise, we consider as 
conclusive evidence that the former might have arisen in the same 
manner. We suppose, that the first steps, in both cases, were 
small, and studiously ordered so as to excite as little attention as 
possible ; that the introduction of new names was, for a consider- 
able time, carefully avoided ; and that the object was, in fact, fully 
gained, before the mask was thrown off, and the purpose avowed. 

Dr. B. insists that the rise of metropolitans wds not as likely to 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 465 

excite alarm and opposition as that of bishops. But why not ? 
Were not prelates as likely to perceive and take the alarm, when 
some of their own number assumed a superiority over the rest, as 
presbyters were, when some of their number gradually gained a 
pre-eminence among the brethren ? Were prelates less discerning, 
less awake to encroachments, or less conscientious in guarding 
against them, than presbyters ? But, says Dr. Bowden, in the 
case of metropolitans, there was no usurpation of any particular 
rite or power; whereas, in the rise of prelacy, according to the 
ideas of Presbyterians, there was a direct usurpation of the ordain- 
ing and conjirming power, which before belonged to all presbyters 
in common. The latter, therefore, in his opinion, was much less 
likely to gain undisputed admittance than the former. But in this 
reasoning Dr. Bowden betrays a total misunderstanding of what 
Presbyterians believe. They do not suppose, or admit, that the 
usurpation of the ordaining power was ihejirst step, or even among 
ihejirst steps in the rise of prelacy. They suppose that an occa- 
sional and then a stated 'presidency were the first steps; and 
that the power of ordaining was not taken entirely out of the 
hands of presbyters, until several centuries after the claims of pre- 
lacy commenced. 

The cases, then, after all that Dr. Bowden has said to the con- 
trary, are strictly parallel. The time and manner of the rise of 
metropolitans, are left as completely undefined in early history, as 
are the time and manner of the rise of prelates. In both cases, by 
a careful comparison of testimony, we can come with certainty, 
near the truth, but nothing more. In both cases, the rise was 
evidently gradual. In both cases, the first steps were small and 
dictated, as those concerned were made to believe, by convenience, 
expediency, and even necessity, rather than by ambition. And, 
in both cases, it was not until several hundred years, when long 
habit and prescription had reconciled every mind to the usurpation, 
that its claims were openly and unreservedly urged. 

It is of some importance to advert to two or three other facts. 
Although Metropolitans y when first introduced, appear to have 
been, as Dr. B. supposes, nothing more than mere ^reszWew^s or 
vioderators ; yet it is manifest that they very soon became some- 

3 N 



466 LETTER IX 

thing more. I know not when those writings, called the Apos- 
tolical Canons, were composed. Dr. B. thinks in the second and 
third centuries. But one thing 1 know, that, wlienever they were 
composed, the 34th canon decrees, " that the bishops of every 
'^ nation ought to know him who '\s first among them, and acknow- 
" ledge him for their head, and do nothing of moment without 
" his consent, and he nothing without their's,'^ Here is a power 
greatly exceeding that of a mere presic?2«^ equal. How was this 
power acquired ? How could it be acquired so soon, and when, 
if we may believe Dr. B. no such thing as clerical amhition exist- 
ed ? Above all, how could it be acquired so quietly, and with so 
litth opposition, as that the several steps of its progress should not 
be found recorded by the early fathers ? Again, in the age of 
Cyprian, we find sub-deacons and readers spoken of as distinct 
orders of clergy, who have each a distinct ordination.* How 
could these orders be introduced, in an age, which, according to 
Dr. B. was so perfectly pure, and so strict in its adherence to 
apostolic precedent? How could readers and sub-deacons be 
ranked among the clergy ? This single fact is enough to show, 
that before the age of Cyprian, undisguised innovation had found 
its way into the church ; and also that, when deacons are spoken 
of, by some of the fathers, as ministers of the word, and as of the 
order of clergy, it affords not the smallest presumption that such 
was the apostolic model. 

As another proof, that a spirit of ambition and of ecclesiastical 
encroachment, early began to appear in the church, I mentioned 
the rise and progress of the Papacy, I observed, that the anti- 
christian claims of the bishop oi Rome began as early as the time 
of Irenoius, and might be considered as gradually rising from that 
period, until he was at length established and acknowledged as 
universal bishop. And I observed, moreover, that, " although 
" the most impartial and learned divines may and do differ among 
" themselves in fixing the several dates of the rise, progress, and 
" establishment of this great spiritual usurper ; yet the fact, that 
" he did thus rise and advance, and erect a tyrannical throne in the 

* Cyprian. Epist. 8. and 39, 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 467 

" church, contrary to all that might have been expected both from 
" the piety and the selfishness of the early Christians, is doubted 
" by none." 

Jn answer to this argument Dr. Bowden ventures to assert, that 
" there is not, before the seventh century, the least trace of any 
" system of policy in the Hohj See, (that of Rome,) to establish 
" its claim of superiority over other bishops." Of an assertion of 
this kind, I really feel at a loss what to think, or what to say.. 
That it is an assertion which directly contradicts all history, I need 
not stay to demonstrate. Every well-informed man knows it to 
be so. The only question which can arise is, how Dr. Bowden 
could have ventured to advance it ? 

By the papacy, strictly speaking, is meant that claim which 
the bishop o( Rome has long made of being, as such, the successor 
of Peter, superior to all other bishops, and the visible head of the 
church. No man in his senses ever supposed that this system of 
ecclesiastical usurpation was either claimed or acknowledged all at 
once. It had a rise, a progress, and a completion. That it did 
not reach its summit until the seventh century, I have no hesita- 
tion in granting. Nor have I ever penned a sentence inconsistent 
with this acknowledgment. But that it began to rise several 
centuries before, every protestant historian that I have ever met 
with, has unequivocally stated : And that it made slow, but steady 
progress from the time of Victor to that of Boniface, insonuich, 
that at the end of every successive century, it was perceived to 
have sensibly gained groun-d, I took for granted, before I saw Dr. 
Bowden's book, that every man who regarded his reputation, either 
for discernment or candour, would readily allow. Nay, Dr. Boio- 
den himself, if I understand him, acknowledges that the power of 
popes was gradually assumed 5 for " the several epochs of their 
increasing power," he tells us, have been so distinctly marked, 
that we can be at no loss to ascertain them. And yet he says, 
" there was not, before the seventh century, the least trace of any 
" system of policy in the Holy See to establish its claim of supe- 
" riority over other bishops !" Unless this gentleman can retreat 
behind some unusual signification of terms, I know not how he 
can escape very serious charges from every discerning reader. 

I consider the following facts, then, as perfectly established— 



468 LETTER IX. 

viz. that as early as the second and third centuries there was quite 
enough clerical ambition in the church to account for the rise of 
prelacy ; that the acknowledged rise of metropolitans, during that 
period, is a proof, at once, that there was a disposition among many 
of the clergy to aspire after pre-eminence, and that it was by no 
means an impossible thing so far to hoodwink and cajole others » 
as to obtain it ; and that the beginning, progress, and establishment 
o( the papal power, is quite as difficult to be accounted for on epis- 
copal principles, as the introduction of prelacy by human authori- 
ty. But, if it be fact, that there were materials enough in the cler- 
gy of that age, and circumstances enough in the times, to generate 
irregular ambition ; and if other jTacfs demonstrate that they c?{c? 
cherish this ambition 5 that they did thus aspire and encroach ; 
then we are surely warranted in inferring that the human invention 
and introduction of prelacy, was not only a possible, but a very 
probable event. 

Among the numerous facts which prove that diocesan episcopa- 
cy is an innovation on the apostolic model, and that it was gradu- 
ally introduced, I mentioned in my former letters, that ministerial 
parity continued longest in those parts of the church which were 
at the greatest distance from the capital cities. As an instance, to 
illustrate this remark, I observed, that " the churches in Scotland 
" remained Presbyterian in their government, from the introduc- 
" tion of Christianity into that country, in the seconc? century, until 
" the Jifth century, when Palladius succeeded in introducing dio- 
" cesan bishops." This fact Dr. Bowden entirely denies. Let us 
see on what evidence it rests. That the gospel was introduced 
into North Britain before the Jifth century, is evident from Ter- 
tullian, who says, " The places of Britain to which the Romans 
" could not have access, are notwithstanding subject to Christ."* 
Fordon, a Scotch historian, who wrote in the fourteenth century, 
and who was no Presbyterian, on the one hand declares, (as Dr. 
B. acknowledges) that the Scots received the Christian faith in the 
year of our Lord 203 ; and on the other asserts, (what Dr. B. has 
not acknowledged,) that " Before the coming of Palladius, the 
" Scots, following the custom of the primitive church, had teachers 

* Contra. Jud. Cap. vii. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY^. 469 

" of the faith, and dispensers of the sacraments, who were only 
" presbyters or monks."* This statement is confirmed by Major, 
another Scottish historian, who wrote about the beginning of the 
sixteenth century, and who lived and died a friend of prelacy. He 
declares, " The Scots were instructed in the faith, by priests and 
" monks, without bishops."! Boethius, a third historian of Scot- 
land, who was contemporary with Major, and also a prelalist, still 
more explicitly says, " Falladius was the first who exercised any 
" hierarchial power among the Scots, being ordained their bishop 
" by the pope, whereas, before, their priests were, by the suffrages 
*' of the people, chosen out of the monks and culdees."f Fros- 
per Aquitanceus, in his Chronicle, has these words — " Falladius 
" is ordained by Pope Ccdestine^ for the Scots, who had already 
" believed in Christ, and is sent to them to be theirj^rs^ bishop." 
Falladius, according to this writer, did not introduce the gospel 
among the Scots ; they believed in Christ before he was sent to 
them ; but he was the Jii'st bishop, or prelate, that they ever had. 
The same fact is attested by Cardinal Baronius, who says, " All 
" men agree that this nation, (the Scots,) had Falladius their first 
" bishop from Pope Co^lestine.^^^ 

Dr. Bowden has no other method of evading the force of this 
evidence, but by insinuating, (as others, who were perplexed by 
the argument, had done before him,) that by the Scots these wri- 
ters meant the Irish ! This evasion is too ridiculous to be seriously 
refuted. It contradicts the most authentic history. || And if Dr. 
B. will take the trouble to consult his own episcopal historians 
Skinner and Goodall,^ he will be satisfied, that in adopting this 
notion, he has been led astray by blind guides. But, suppose that 
it were even so ; what advantage to Dr. Bowdenh cause would re- 
sult from this discovery ? Would it not be a fact equally against 
him, if it were found that the churches of Ireland instead of Scot- 

* Hist. Lib. iii. Cap. 8. 

f 2?e Gestis. Scotor. Lib. ii. Cap. 2. ^ Scot. Hist. Lib.vi. 

^ Annul 429. 

D Cardinal Baronius expressly distinguishes between the visits of 
Falladius to Scotland, and Ireland. His visit to the former country, he 
mentions in the manner cited above: that to the latter, he speaks of in a 
subsequent paragraph. 

% Skinner's Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, Letter i. GoodalVs Introduc- 
tion to the History' and Antiquities of Scotland, Chapters 2. 7, and 16. 



470 LETTER IX. 

landy were under the government of presbyters, without prelates, 
for more than 200 years after their being first planted ? 

Dr. Bowden, in attempting to show the improbability that pre- 
lacy was introduced after the apostolic age, as a measure of human 
exjpedienci/i still insists that, if it were introduced at all, it must 
have been veri/ suddenly. To corroborate this assertion, he repre- 
sents some of the ablest Presbyterian divines who have written on 
the subject, as acknowledging that prelacy had been brought in as 
early as the middle of the second century. He assures us, more 
than once, that, among others, the learned Blondel concedes the 
existence of prelacy as early as the year of our Lord 140, which 
was within fifty years of the death of the last apostle. This is a 
misrepresentation ; and a misrepresentation so extraordinary, that 
I know not how to account for it but by supposing that Dr. Bow- 
den never saw BlondeVs far-famed work. Whatever Dr. B. may 
say to the contrary, ^/oncZe/ does not make such a concession as he 
imputes to him. The passage to which Dr. B. no doubt, refers, is 
found in the 'preface to the Apology ; and its import is, that about 
the year 140, according to the best fight the author had been able 
to attain, one of the steps toward the establishment of prelacy was 
taken, which consisted in choosing standing moderators. If by 
bishops be understood, not what the scriptures and the Presbyte- 
rian church mean by that title, but what Dr. Bowden and his friends 
mean, an order of clergy, who were alone invested with the power 
of ordination ; then it is perfectly manifest to all who ever perused 
BlondeVs work, that its grand scope is to show the direct contrary 
of that which Dr. Bowden ascribes to him ; and that for this pur- 
pose, he quotes Cypi'ian, TertuUian, Origen, and still later fathers, 
who lived long after the year 140, to show that, in their day 
episcopacy, in the prelatical sense of the word, was not introduced. 
In short, BlondeVs whole book is written to prove that prelacy 
was not an apostolic institution ; that it was brought into the 
church gradually ; and that it was several hundred years in gain- 
ing an establishment. Considering the frequency and positiveness 
with which Dr, Bowden undertakes to slate the testimony oi Blon- 
del, he certainly ought to have understood it better. 

Dr. B. also asserts that Salmasius, an acute and learned advo- 
cate of ministerial parity, makes a concession of the same kind 
with that which he ascribes to Blondel. I have never seen the 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 471 

IValo Messdlhms of the celebrated Presbyterian ; and cannot un- 
dertake with confidence to say that Dr. B. has misrepresented 
him also ; but I strongly suspect this to be the case, and shall cer- 
tainly require, after all that I have seen, better evidence of the 
contrary than his assertion. The learned Chamier and Du Moulin 
are also quoted by Dr. B. as making still more pointed and impor- 
tant concessions. But as he has not chosen to inform us where 
these concessions are to be found, I consider myself as liberated 
from all further obligation to notice them.* I am verily persuaded, 
however, that he has been deceived by the representation of 
others, and that he entirely mistakes the opinions of those 
writers. 

After carefully reviewing all that Dr. Bowden has said on the 
rise and progress of prelacy, I only think it necessary to offer and 
illustrate a single additional remark. It is this. That the indis- 
criminate application of the titles bishop and presbi/ter, during the 
Jirst and second, and occasionally, as Dr. B. himself acknowledges, 
in the third century, furnishes, in my view, a most powerful argu- 
ment in support of ministerial parity, and that in a point of light 
which I have not hitherto stated. The use of terms is to express 
distinct ideas. The use of official titles is to express in single terms 
official rank and powers. Now it is conceded by Dr. Bowden, and 
by Episcopalians generally, that the titles bishop and yresbyter 
were applied indiscriminately, in the days of the apostles, to de- 
signate the same order of clergy ; and that both are most frequent- 
ly applied, in the New Testament, to what they call the second 
order, or the pastors of single churches. They contend that the 
apostles themselves were, strictly speaking, the prelates of the 
apostolic church; and that the iii\e o( bishop was, in fact, then 
applied precisely as the Presbyterians now apply it, to every min- 
ister of the gospel who had a pastoral charge. This they all 
explicitly grant. But they insist that, in process of time, as the 
apostles died, the title of apostle was laid aside, and that of bishop 
began to take its place, and to be restricted to an order of clergy 
superior to pastors, and succeeding to the apostolic pre-eminence. 

* It is really not a little extraordinary that Dr. Bowden, after all his 
promises to the contrary, should so frequently be guilty of this conduct. 



472 LETTER IX. 

But does not all this carry improbability on the very face of it ? Is 
it likely that the inspired apostles, or men immediately taught by 
them, when the churches, for more than half a century, had been 
accustomed to employ a certain title to designate a particular class 
of ecclesiastical officers, would have adopted that very tide to de- 
signate a totally different class, and that when all the riches of 
language were open to their selection ? Can it be supposed, above 
all, that this would have been done in a case in which, if we believe 
our episcopal brethren, the distinction of orders has always been 
essential to the very being of the church ? It cannot be supposed. 
Had their object been to produce confusion of ideas, and perpetual 
inconvenience in the expression of them, they could scarcely have 
adopted a more direct method to attain their end. 

But, on the other hand, supposing prelacy not to have been an 
apostolic institution, but to have been brought in by human ambition, 
and that in a gradual and almost insensible manner, as we con- 
tend; then nothing is more natural than this indiscriminate use of 
official titles in early times. The most effectual way to disguise a 
new office, and to prevent the mass of the people from suspecting 
it of either encroachment or innovation, was to give it an old name. 
When, therefore, one of the pastors, in a city or district, began to 
assume pre-eminent honours and powers over his colleagues, instead 
of taking some new and high sounding title, it was'an obvious dic- 
tate of policy to content himself with a title which was common 
to his brethren. This policy was accordingly adopted. The plain 
title of hisJiop, which was before given to a?^ pastors, and to which 
the people had been long accustomed, was still the only one which 
the aspiring individual ventured to employ. But it obviously would 
not have served the purpose either of convenience or ambition to 
con/fwwe this community of tide when anew order had arisen in 
the church. Some alteration of ecclesiastical language was neces- 
sary for the sake of being understood; and it was equally necessary 
that the alteration should be such as not to alarm or offend. The 
consequence was, that the ordinary pastors gradually dropped the 
title of bisJiop, leaving it to be the appropriate tide of those who 
had succeeded in raising themselves above the rest, and consenting 
to be called presbyters or elders only. 

When, therefore, our episcopal brethren grant, as they all do, 
that the titles of bishop and presbyter , in the days of the apostles. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 473 

were interchangeably applied to the same class of officers, and those 
ordinary pastors of the church ; when they grant, as they also 
universally do, that the former of these titles was gradually disused 
by ordinary pastors and appropriated to prelates ; and when they 
further concede, as they do with one voice, that the process of 
dropping this title on the part of the former, and appropriating it 
on the part of the latter, took up a period of more than a hundred 
years after the death of the apostles ; — I think no candid man can 
hesitate to conclude, that the necessity of this change in ecclesias- 
tical titles, arose from the introduction of an order of officers be- 
fore unknoion in the church. 

What confirms this reasoning is, that we certainly know facts 
of a similar kind to have taken place very early. Dr, Bowden 
himself asserts that although metropolitans existed, in fact^ in the 
second century, yet that the use of this distinctive title, was but 
little known before the council of Nice, in the fourth ceuXury . 
It is certain that the title of pope was frequently applied to 
pastors in general, as early as the third century. We find Cy- 
prian repeatedly called by this title, in the epistles addressed to him. 
It was not until a considerable time afterwards, that the Roman 
pontiff succeeded in appropriating to himself the title of tvly^ pope, 
by way of eminence. These examples are exactly in point. A 
policy which we know to have been adopted in other cases, we 
have every reason to believe was adopted in that under considera- 
tion. In short, our doctrine concerning the rise and progress of 
prelacy is not only, in itself, natural and probable 5 but it is so re- 
markably confirmed by early history, and especially by a variety 
of minute facts incidentally recorded, that my only surprise 
is, how any candid mind can withstand the evidence in its 
favour. 

3 O 



( 474 



LETTER X. 



MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS.— CONCLUSION. 



CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

I HAVE now nearly completed my review of such parts of Dr. 
Bowden^s volumes, and of Mr. How's pamphlet, as appear to me 
worthy of notice. I have, indeed, passed over many passages in 
both, which might justly have been made the objects of severe 
criticism ; but which I considered as either of too little importance 
to demand animadversion, or so obviously erroneous, as to leave 
no unprejudiced reader of the least discernment in danger of being 
led astray by them. It only remains that 1 make a few miscella- 
neous remarks, and then close a controversy which I unfeignedly 
regret that there should ever have been a necessity of begin 
ning. 

It was my intention to add another letter on the concessions of 
Episcoj^alians, for the purpose of vindicating and establishing what 
I had before advanced under this head ;* and also of presenting a 

* Dr. Bowden has made an insinuation v/ith regard to one of the episco- 
pal concessions cited in my work, of which it is proper to take notice. 
He says he has examined Jewel's Defence of his Apology^ and cannot find 
the passage which I profess to quote from that work, in my seventh 
letter. He therefore infers that I have either taken the quotation at se- 
cond hand, on the authority of some person who has blundered in the bu- 
siness; or that my references are to a different edition from that which 
he has consulted. I can assure this learned professor, who has, it must 
be confessed, much reason to plume himself on the fairness and accuracy 



CONCLUSTON. 475 

number of additional concessions from the works of eminent epis- 
copal writers. To fulfil the latter purpose, I had made a large 
collection of extracts from the works of Bishop Jewel, Bishop 
Andrews, Bishop Morton, Bishop Hall, Bishop Taylor, Bishop 
Burnet, Bishop Warhurton, Dr. Jorton, and several other prelates 
and divines, all containing sentiments very different from those of 
Dr. Boioden and Mr. How, and making concessions of the most 
decisive kind. But having already drawn out this work to a length 
greatly beyond my original design, I am constrained to suppress 
the proposed letter, and to content myself with the episcopal con- 
cessions already laid before the public. 

But really, independent of the fearof trespassing on the patience 
of my readers, there is little use in collecting testimony for such 
opponents as Dr. Botoden and Mr. How, However abundant and 
pointed it may be, they appear to find no difficulty in persuading 
themselves that it is of no value. The unceremonious manner in 
which Dr. B. rejects testimony is amusing. The testimony of 
Archbishop Grindal is set aside on the ground of his being " some- 
what fanatically inclined," and " lax in his discipline." The 
testimony of Wickliffe, on the ground of his being supposed to 
have embraced error as to other points. The testimony of Dr. 
Raignolds is rejected, because, though a regular member of the 
Church of England, he was a Puritan at heart. The testimony 
of Archbishop Usher is pronounced to consist only in a scholastic 
distinction, which dull Presbyterians have not perceived ; the 
difference between him and other Episcopalians being only ver- 
haV^ That of Bishop StilUngjleet, upon the ground of the imma- 
turity of a juvenile mind, the visionary speculations of which were 
corrected by age. That of Archbishop Tillotson, because he was 
" a very moderate churchman," — " a sort of neutral man," and 
withal " suspected of Arianism and Universalisra." That of 
Bishop Croft, because his name is so obscure that not one of the 
Episcopal clergy of this city ever heard of him before ; and because 

of his quotations, that I possess a copy of the work from which my cita- 
tion was made; that my edition is, like that which he professes to have 
consulted with so much care, (a. folio, printed in 1570,) and that I am 
ready, whenever he will please to favour me with a visit, to show him 
the very words which I have quoted, in the very page referred to as 
containing them. 



476 LETTER X. 

he was " a man of very comprehensive principles, and an enemy 
of all creeds and subscriptions." That of Mosheim, because " he 
had the system of his own church to maintain."* But when testi- 
mony is adduced which cannot be set aside by any such frivolous 
pretext, it is boldly pronounced " worthless," « of no value," 
perfectly " destitute of force," &c. Nothing can be drawn from 
testimony. It is waste of time and labour to collect it. 

Mr. Hoio^s mode of treating the concessions of the Episcopa- 
lians, is still more ludicrous. He complains that I have produced 
extracts only from between thirty and forty writers ; pronounces 
this a number too trifling to be regarded as of any weight ; and 
expresses a suspicion that he could present a much larger list of 
Presbyterian writers who have opposed the doctrines of their own 
church. — In answer to this plea, I will only say, that when Mr. 
How shall present me with an equally long list of standard Presby- 
terian writers, who are praised, quoted, studied, and made the 
guides of theological students, and who at the same time oppose 
our fundamental doctrines, I shall then acknowledge that those 
doctrines are not the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church. 

Were there time to go over in detail the extracts from Episcopal 
writers which I have presented as concessions, it would be easy to 
show that almost all the glosses of Dr. Bowden and Mr. How are 



* If the testimony of Mosheim. is to be rejected on this ground, then 
the testimony of all the Episcopalians quoted by Dr. B. himself, must 
be set aside on the same ground. Will he agree to this? Besides, I 
thought Dr. Bowden had assured us that the Lutheran church is Episco- 
pal; and yet Dr. Mosheim' s testmxony against Episcopacy is to be re- 
jected, because he had "the system of his own church to maintain!" 
The truth is, the testimony of Mosheim and of other Lutheran divines on 
this subject is peculiarly weighty: for while t^iey have in their church 
a sort o^ qualified Episcopacy; and while they have as strong a tempta- 
tion as other churches to place their constitution on the footing of 
divine right; they unanimously grant now, what they have unanimously 
granted since the days o^ Luther ^ that prelacy is not a divine or apostolic 
institution; that it was introduced after the days of the apostles; and 
that it rests on the ground of human expediency alone. This fact will 
weigh more, with ever}'- impartial inquirer, than all that the collected 
learning and ?eal of the divines of the church oi England have ever 
advanced in favour of Episcopacy, because " they have the system of 
their own church to maintain ." 



CONCLUSION. 477 

either irrelevant or worse. But such a process would be an un- 
reasonable trespass on your patience. I have already given a 
specimen of the mode of answering adopted by the former of these 
gentlemen, in the case of Bishop Jewel. The latter is no less vul- 
nerable in a variety of instances. He tells us, for example, (p. 
56J) that Archbishop Usher pronounces Presbyterian ordination to 
be schismaticalj in all cases excepting that of necessity alone. This 
is not true. Usher says neither this, nor any thing like it. He says^ 
" the ordinations made by such presbyters as have severed them- 
" selves from those bishops, unto whom they had sworn canonical 
" obedience, cannot possibly by me be excused from being schis- 
" matical ;^^ immediately after which he goes on to say, that he 
" loves and honours" the Presbyterian churches of Holland and 
France, as " true members of the church universal 5 and that he 
would V. ith pleasure receive the sacrament from the hands of the 
ministers in either.* 

My argument drawn from the practical influence of prelacy, 
has, as I fully expected, both embarrassed and offended my oppo- 
nents. But, after all their impatience and irritation under it, and 
all their cavils against it, I still think it a sound and irresistible 
argument. Ifihe Episcopal Church, be the only true church, the 
only denomination of professing Christians who are " in covenant 
with God," then the demand that they should exhibit more of the 
distinguishing character of God's covenant people, viz. universal 
holiness, is surely a reasonable demand. Tn truth, their mode of 
replying to this demand amounts to a surrender of the argument. 
With their subterfuge respecting the Quakers, I have already 
shown that we have nothing to do. 

Dr. Bowden complains that, in speaking of the practicalinflu- 
ence ofj^relacy, I have expressed myself in terms much too severe 
concerning prelates and their system. He complains especially of 
the following passage : " If we examine the history of any Episco- 
" pal Church on earth, we shall find it exhibiting, to say the least, 
" as large a share of heresy, contention, and schism, as any which 
" bears the Presbyterian form : and what is more, we shall ever 
" find the prelates themselves quite as forward as any others in 
" scenes of violence and outrage." He asserts that " these charges 

* Judgment of the late Jlrchhishop of Armagh, 110 — 123. 



478 LETTER X. 

" could not have proceeded from a proper motive ;" and that, ^^ if 
" they were even well-founded, they ought not to have been ad- 
" vanced." On what ground Dr. Bowden should have taken so 
much offence at this passage, it is not easy to see. Was it going 
either an indecent or an unreasonable length, when I was fairly 
called to speak on the subject, to say, that prelacy has been proved 
to be quite as favourable to heresy, contemion,^and schism, as 
Presbyterianism ; and prelates as chargeable with violence and 
outrage as ijreshyters ? If this was indecent, then what shall be 
said of this gentleman himself, who has asserted that every charge 
which I have brought against prelacy " may be retorted upon pres- 
bytery, in a ten-fold degree ? If my motives were bad for merely 
alleging that Presbyterians stand on as good ground, with regard 
to the practical influence of their system, as Episcopalians do; what 
must have been the motives of Dr. B. in alleging that the former 
are tenfold loorse than the latter ? What must have been his mo- 
tives in expressing himself frequently in much more severe and 
indelicate terms of Presbyterians and Presbytery ? But the cases 
are, in his estimation, essentially different. The abuse of Presby- 
terians is no crime. That this must be his opinion is evident from 
the reproachful charges which he unreservedly heaps upon them, 
in those very parts of his work in which he censures me for my 
unexceptionable comparison. 

Dr. Boivden still insists that there is peculiar efficacy in the 
episcopal form of government in securing the unity of the Church 5 
and undertakes to give a contrasted view of Presbyterian and Epis- 
copal churches with respect to this point. I utterly deny the cor- 
rectness of his alleged facts on this subject; and have no fear in 
repeating my assertion, that the history of any number of Episco- 
pal Churches exhibits quite as large a share of heresy, contention, 
schism, as the history of any corresponding number of Presby- 
terian Churches. I am perfectly willing to go for an example to 
the Church of England, or to any part of the world, where pre- 
lacy has ever existed ; and am sure that no impartial student of 
ecclesiastical history will be of a different opinion. What does Dr. 
Bowden mean by unity, as applied to a church ? Does he mean 
unity of spirit or unity of name? If the latter, then no one who 
understands Christianity can respect or value it : if the former, then 
it may be shown, that the church of England, (which probably 



CONCLUSION. 479 

Dr. B. would consider as the most favourable specimen the world 
has ever seen,) is, and has long been, as much a stranger to it, as 
any of her neighbours. If all manner of discordant sentiment 5 if 
every grade of heresy, from that of Arminius, to the cold, gloomy, 
semi-deistical scheme of Socinus ; if the constant pulDlic manifesta- 
tion of this discordance, and of these contending heresies ; and that 
not only among the people, and the inferior clergy, but also among 
the prelates themselves; if embracing multitudes of clergy who' 
disbelieve her articles, who dislike her liturgy , and who yet have 
consciences which admit of their canonically swearing to the belief 
and support of both ; — if these things constitute unify, then indeed 
she may be said to possess it. But this is a kind of unity of which 
the apostles knew nothing, and which, if they were now on earth, 
they would pronounce of no value. There is unspeakably more 
real unity among all the different portions of Presbyterians in the 
United States, though called by different names, than exists, or 
has for near 200 years existed, in the Church of England, though 
nominally one. They have the same confession of faith, the same 
mode of worship, the same form of church government, and are, 
in all important points, so entirely united, that many of their best 
members often wonder and lament, that they are not one in name 
as well as in reality. 

With respect to the doctrine o{ uninterrupted succession, I have 
little to add to what is contained in my former letters. Dr. Bow- 
den is indeed right in suspecting that I lay no great stress, on this 
doctrine, as he understands and states it. That there always lias 
been, since the days of Christ, and that there always will be to the 
end of the world, a true church, and a true and valid gospel min- 
istry, in that church, I firmly believe. But as to the historical 
proo/ that this succession in the ministry has never been interrupt- 
ed, by any event which might be called an irregular or unca- 
nonical ordination, I neither care for it^ nor believe in it. 

The promise of the Saviour that neither the church nor her min- 
istry shall ever become extinct, is enough to satisfy me. That the 
succession in this ministry will be kept up in the same exact man- 
ner in every age, I consider neither scripture nor common sense as 
requiring me to believe. There is no Presbyterian who contends 
more zealously for a strict adherence to ecclesiastical rules than I 



480 LETTER X. 

am disposed to do ; nor one who deems it of more importance that 
we set our faces against every kind of spurious investiture, and that 
we retain the scriptural method of ordination by the laying on of 
the hands of the presbytery ; yet I have no hesitation in saying, 
that if it were to be discovered, that, about two hundred ox five 
hundred years ago, the regular succession of our ordinations had 
been really interrupted by some ecclesiastical oversight or disorder, 
I should not consider it as in the least degree affecting either the 
legitimacy of our present ministry, or the validity of our present 
ordinances. 

The learned and acute episcopal divine Chillingworth, if I under- 
stand him, takes the same ground, and views the subject in the 
same light. Though he is a warm advocate for the apostolical in- 
stitution of prelacy ; yet he evidently considers the doctrine of 
uninterrupted succession, and especially the idea of attaching fun- 
damental importance to it, as a popish error ; and the historic 
proof oi the fact as equally ridiculous and impossible.'^' 

Dr. Boioden, however, objects that, even on Presbyterian princi- 
ples, the episcopal succession is better than ours ; or rather that 
ours is utterly invalid, because, at the sera of the reformation, the 
presbyters, in different parts of Europe, who first began to ordain, 
had not the ordaining power specifically or professedly imparted 
to them by the bishops who ordained them ; so that they did not 
even stand ou equal ground with modern Presbyterian ministers ; on 
whom in their ordination, the ordaining power is formally bestow- 
ed. But this objection has no force. The popish doctrine, "that 
it is the intention of the administrator which constitutes the validity 
of an ecclesiastical ordinance," is discarded by all protestants. 
And as the first presbyters who undertook to ordain, after emerging 
from the darkness of popery, were regularly invested with the 
power of preaching the gospel, and administering sacraments, all 
Presbyterians consider the right to ordain as necessarily included 
in those powers, whether the fact be mentioned, or even thought of 
at the time of ordination or not. 

Dr. Bowden, toward the close of his last letter, expresses much 
irritated feeling at my having represented clerical imparity as a 

• See his Safe Way of Salvation^ Part t. Chapters 2. and 6. 



CONCLUSION. 481 

" popish doctrine." He demands, in a tone to which I forbear to 
give a name, whether I " know what popery is ?" In the next 
page he calls upon me to " lay my hand upon my heart, and in 
*^ the fear of God to say, whether I do not think that I have most 
" grossly libelled the whole Episcopal church throughout the 
" world ;" and adds, that " something explicit upon this point will 
" be expected from me." This good gentleman shall have " some- 
thing explicit.'' Let me assure him, then, that, after the most se- 
rious and conscientious review of all that I have written, I am so 
far from thinking that I have " libelled" the episcopal church in 
representing prelacy as a " popish doctrine," that all my inquiries 
convince me, more than ever, of the justness of my representation, 
and embolden me to repeat and urge it with new confidence. In 
answer to Dr. Bowden's question, what \s popery? I answer, 
Popery, strictly speaking, as was remarked in a former letter, is 
the ecclesiastical supremacy usurped by the bishop oiRome. But, 
more generally speaking, it implies that system of corruption^ 
both in doctrine, government, and practice, which characterizes, 
and has, for nearly fifteen hundred years, characterized the 
Romish, or Latin church. Hence iransubstantiaiion, purga- 
iory, auricular confession, the worship of images, the invocation 
of saints, and the adoration of the cross, are all spoken of by the 
most accurate writers, as popish errors ; although most of them 
had crept into the church, long before the period which Dr. Bow- 
den assigns for the rise of the papal usurpation ; and although none 
of them, excepting perhaps the first, could ever be traced to the 
Roman pontiff himself as their immediate author. 

I say then, again, that, in this sense, clerical imparity is a " po- 
pish error," nearly coeval in its rise with the commencement of 
the papacy ; originating from the same source ; and tending, in a 
degree, to the same mischief. And though I would by no means 
place the former of these errors on a par with the latter ; nor ven- 
ture to pronounce the one, as I do the other, an aniichristian 
abuse, being fully persuaded that many of the greatest and best 
men that ever lived have been friends of prelacy ; yet all my in- 
quiries have more and more confirmed me in the persuasion, that 
it is a real and a mischievous departure from apostolic simplicity, 
and that it first arose from the same principle of clerical ambition 
which gave rise to the papacy. I hope this is " explicit" enough 
3 P 



482 LETTER X. 

Nor is this all. When I look over the charges and reasonings 
urged by the popish writers, against the Waldenses and AlhigeU' 
sesj as they are preserved and exhibited in Perrin^s history of those 
illustrious witnesses for the truth; when I read the language used 
by the popish persecutors of the English reformers, as it is record- 
ed in different parts of Fox's Acts and Monuments; when I ex- 
amine the cavils and objections made by Harding, Saunders, Sta- 
jjleton, Campian, and other zealous Catholics, against the church of 
England; and when I look into the writings which Chillingworth, 
in his Safe Way of Salvation, examines and refutes, I could almost 
fancy myself listening to the pleas of some high-toned Episcopa- 
lians in the United States against their Presbyterian neighbours. 
Could you make it convenient to examine those writings for your- 
selves, j'ou would find in them so large a portion of the same rea- 
sonings, and the same language, which are now found in certain 
episcopal writers ; so much of the same cry, in exactly or nearly 
the same words, about the church/ the true church/ the apos- 
tolic church / so much of the same kind of charges, respecting 
schism, departure from the covenanted way of salvatiouj loss of 
the apostolic succession, and having no true priesthood, or valid 
ordinances, as would fill you with astonishment, if not with emo- 
tions of a more unfavourable nature. Nor would your astonishment 
be at all diminished by finding, as you would find, that the friends 
of the Church of England, in defending themselves and their cause 
against the writers in question, resorted, in a multitude of in- 
stances, to the very same scriptural authorities, and the very same 
arguments, which Presbyterians employ against the high-toned 
prelatists of the present day ! — Reflect seriously on these facts, 
and then ask yourselves, whether Dr. Bowden has any just reason 
to complain of me for speaking of an affinity between his claims 
and those of popery ? 1 have, indeed, repeatedly suggested the idea 
of such an affinity, and distinctly ?neant to do so. I have done U, 
however, without passion, and without any wish to give unneces- 
sary pain ; but with a calm, deliberate, and firtn conviction, that 
the suggestion was well-founded. And I can assure the gentlemen 
who have written so much and so resentfully for the purpose of re- 
moving it, that their publications are far, very far, from having di- 
minished the force of this conviction. 



CONCLUSION. 483 

I have now, my brethren, completed my examination of such 
parts of Dr. Bowden^s and Mr. How's letters as I deem worthy of 
notice. It was my intention, after the example of the former of 
these gentlemen, to collect and present in one view, a catalogue of 
the " misrepresentations," " unfounded assertions," " mistakes,'* 
and " omissions," with which their pages abound. But finding 
these " misrepresentations," &c. to be so numerous^ that a mere 
list of them, without comment, would fill another long letter ; and 
many of them of so disreputable and offensive a cliaracter as not 
to be contemplated, even by opponents, without much commiser- 
ation for their authors 5 I have determined to spare myselfthe pain 
of writing, and you of reading such a letter; and here to take a 
final leave of the subject. I engaged in this controversy, without 
the least expectation of convincing Episcopalians, or of bringing 
over to my own opinion an individual of that communion ; but 
solely for the purpose of satisfying and confirming Presbyterians. 
My object, I have the pleasure to know, is attained ; and perceiv- 
ing no further advantage in prolonging the controversy, I now 
lay down the pen 5 nor can I foresee any event that will ever tempt 
me to resume it on this subject. 

I take for granted that all the gentlemen who have already ap- 
peared as my opponents, will again come before the public in reply 
to these letters j and will endeavour to persuade their readers that 
I have again misrepresented them and their cause, and again laid 
myself open to the heaviest charges and the severest reproach. All 
this and more I deliberately expect from gentlemen who have 
generally manifested a wish to have the last word. Should my 
expectation be realized, it will give me no uneasiness 5 nor shall I 
ever, (according to my present views,) take the least public notice 
of any thing that they may say. If, indeed, I should hereafter 
discover any important errors in the foregoing pages, {trivial 
ones, which do not affect the main question, will probably be dis- 
covered and pointed out,) I shall consider it as a duty which I owe 
to you to correct them. But with the controversy, as such, it is 
my firm resolution to have nothing more to do. This resolution 
is formed and expressed, not out of any disrespect to the gentlemen 
in question ; but from a deliberate conviction that enough has been 
said on the Presbyterian side of the argument ; and that my time 



484 LETTER X. 

and pen may be hereafter devoted to objects more agreeable to 
myself, and more useful to others. 

That the high-toned class of our episcopal brethren will, in any 
respect, alter their tone, either of speaking or writing, I have no 
expectation ; nor have I the least anxiety that they should. Hav- 
ing provided the antidote, I am perfectly indifferent how often or 
how long the poison may be disseminated. Let them hereafter 
sing the praises of their " truly primitive and apostolic church^]^ 
as loudly and as confidently as they please. Let them arrogate 
to themselves the honour of having the only t?'ue priesthood, and 
the only valid ordinances in the land. Let them embrace every 
occasion of pronouncing that we, as Presbyterians, are rebels and 
schismatics, and out of the covenanted jj^ay of salvation. I trust, 
my brethren, that not an individual among us has any feelings 
which are capable of being wounded by such language. It is, in- 
deed, rather fitted to excite our pity, than our resentment ; and is, 
certainly, much more disreputable to its authors, than to its objects. 

That it is our earnest desire to live in peace and harmony with 
our brethren of the episcopal church, you can all bear witness. For 
them, I can trulv say, that I entertain a high respect ; and am hap- 
py to number individuals of that communion among my most 
valued friends. I know, also, that many of that denomination 
entirely disapprove, and deeply lament, the offensive writings of 
their own clergy, which have produced this controversy. Were 
I capable of applying to such persons many of the remarks which 
I have been compelled to apply, in the foregoing pages, to Dr. 
Bowden and Mr. How, I should deem myself one of the most un- 
candid and unjust of men. And, I will add, that it would give 
me much pain, if any thing in this, or my preceding volume, should 
be considered as pointing at Episcopahans of that liberal class. 
Differences of opinion there are, and will be, between us ; but if 
these differences are maintained on both sides with that spirit 
which the Holy Ghost teacheth, they will neither foster the wrath 
q/'»mw, nor interfere with real Christian unity. Continue, then, 
I intreat you, to cherish on your part a spirit of amity and concili- 
ation whatever reception it may meet with. Be always ready to 
exhibit your share, and more than your share, of this temper. And 
then, whatever may be the result, it will turn to you for a testimo^ 
ny. Remember that the haughty language, or the unscriptural 



CONCLUSION. 485 

claims of the most uncharitable of our episcopal brethren, cannot 
possibly injure us ; but that we shall always injure ourselves exact- 
ly in proportion as we lose sight of that holy spirit which adorned 
and united the disciples of Christ in the days of apostolic purity, 
and which compelled even their enemies to exclaim, " Behold how 
these Christians love one another." 

Whether your pastors are lawful ministers, and the ordinances 
which they dispense legitimate ordinances, are questions which, 
happily, it is not for Dr. Bowden and Mr. Hoio to decide. There 
is a day approaching when they will be decided before a higher 
tribunal, and with consequences more interesting than language^ 
can express. Happy will it be for us, if in that day, we shall all 
be found members of that holy church, which the Divine Redeemer 
hath purchased with his blood, and adorned with his Spirit ! Happy 
will it be for your ministers, if they shall be found, in that day, to 
have preached not themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and 
themselves your servants for Jesus' sake / And happy will it be 
for you, my brethren, if it shall then appear that you have not rest- 
ed in rites and forms ; but that you have received the truth in the 
love of it ; that Christ has been formed iji you the hope of glory ; 
and that you belong to that chosen generation, that royal priest- 
hood, that holy nation, that peculiar people, who shall for ever 
show forth the praises of Him who hath called them out of dark- 
ness into his marvellous light ! That this blessedness may be 
shared by you, and equally by them also, whom, in this contro- 
versy, we have been called to oppose, is the unfeigned prayer of. 
My Christian Brethren, 

Your affectionate Servant in the Gospel, 

SAMUEL MILLER. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



